This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was found guilty of two counts of negligent arson after a fire caused damage to the Victim's property and vehicle. The Defendant confessed to being involved in causing the fire, which he allegedly set to send a message to the Victim after a dispute over retrieving his property (paras 1-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, Eddy County: The Defendant was convicted of two counts of negligent arson (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions for negligent arson, contending that the evidence showed intentional arson instead. The Defendant also raised a new issue regarding the inability to be retried for intentional arson if the convictions were reversed (paras 2-3, 7).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for negligent arson?
- Can the Defendant be retried for intentional arson if the convictions for negligent arson are reversed?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions for negligent arson (para 9).
Reasons
Per Henderson J. (Hanisee and Yohalem JJ. concurring):
The Court found sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for negligent arson. The jury could reasonably infer that the Defendant was aware of the substantial and foreseeable risk created by the fires he started and that he was indifferent to the consequences and the safety of others. The Court rejected the Defendant's reliance on State v. Jacobs, clarifying that evidence of intentional conduct does not preclude a conviction for negligent conduct. The Court also denied the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement to include a new issue, as it was not viable (paras 4-6, 8).