Page 1
House Was ‘Inhabited’ Because Defendant Lived There at Time of Arson, C.A. Says
There’s No Requirement of an Intent to Reside There After the Fire, Opinion Sets Forth
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The First District Court of Appeal yesterday rejected the contention of a man convicted of the arson of an inhabited dwelling—his own home—that he’s entitled to a reversal because the prosecution failed to show an intent on his part to reside there after the fire.
Justice Jeremy M. Goldman of Div. Four authored the opinion which affirms the conviction of Jordan Buckner.
“[T]he law does not require the prosecution to prove that Buckner intended to continue living in the house after the fire, and since Buckner was living in the house at the time of the fire, substantial evidence supports the jury’s conclusion that the house was inhabited,” Goldman said in a published portion of the opinion.
Unpublished Portions
In an unpublished portion, he rejected the contentions that statements were improperly admitted at trial in violation of his Miranda right—holding that he was not in custody at the time the statements were made—but agreed with Goldman that restitution should not have been ordered in favor of the fire department and the insurance company because they were not direct victims of the arson. The mortgage lender was such a victim, however, and the extent of its losses must be assessed on remand, the jurist declared.
Addressing the “inhabited” requirement, Goldman said:
“Buckner relies on cases in which a structure has been vacated at some point before the fire is set. The question in those cases is whether an unoccupied house is ‘inhabited’—i.e., whether it is ‘currently being used for dwelling purposes’ notwithstanding that the residents previously left it. Courts have held that such a structure is ‘inhabited’ if the residents, when they vacated it, intended to return and continue living there.”
Relevant Question
Distinguishing such cases, he wrote:
“The relevant question is whether he was living there when the fire was set. Buckner himself testified that he was living at the house on the day of the fire. The physical evidence was consistent with this testimony. His furniture, clothing, cell phones, a laptop computer, important documents, and car were in the home. Substantial evidence therefore supports the jury’s conclusion that the house was inhabited at the time of the fire.”
The case is People v. Buckner, A162304.
Copyright 2023, Metropolitan News Company