In re V.V. - 51 Cal. 4th 1020, 125 Cal. Rptr. 3d 421, 252 P.3d 979 (2011)

Rule:

A person is guilty of arson when he or she willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned or who aids, counsels, or procures the burning of, any structure, forest land, or property. Pen. Code, § 451. "Willfully" is defined not in the arson chapter, but in Pen. Code, § 7, item 1: The word "willfully," when applied to the intent with which an act is done or omitted, implies simply a purpose or willingness to commit the act, or make the omission referred to. It does not require any intent to violate law, or to injure another, or to acquire any advantage. The arson chapter defines "maliciously" as involving a wish to vex, defraud, annoy, or injure another person, or an intent to do a wrongful act, established either by proof or presumption of law. Pen. Code § 450, subd. (e). This is the same definition as found in § 7, item 4, except for the inclusion of "defraud" in § 450.

Facts:

V.V. and J.H., minors, set off a firecracker on a brush-covered hillside in Pasadena, causing a fire that burned five acres of forest land. At a combined adjudicatory hearing, the juvenile court determined that V.V. and J.H. had committed arson. The court found that, although they did not intend to set the hillside on fire, the evidence satisfied the mental state required for arson. In V.V.'s case, the Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court's order, finding that the evidence sufficiently established the requisite mental state of malice because V.V. deliberately and intentionally set off a firecracker on a brush-covered hill. In J.H.'s case, a different division of the Court of Appeal found that the intentional act of setting off a firecracker on a brush-covered hill without intent to do harm was insufficient to establish the element of malice. The state supreme court granted further review.

Issue:

By setting off a firecracker on a brush-covered hillside, did the defendant minors commit arson? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court concluded that minors’ acts, although done without intent to cause a fire or other harm, were sufficient to establish the requisite malice for arson under Pen. Code, § 450, 451. Although the minors did not intend to set the hillside on fire, they knew that their intentional acts created a fire hazard. The juvenile court reasonably inferred that the minors knew a fire could result from their statements that they tried to avoid the dry brush by throwing the firecracker onto concrete or a green area. They were also alerted to the dangers beforehand because a third minor did not want to participate in lighting the firecrackers, fearing that someone might get injured. Further, a reasonable person would not have objectively believed that a firecracker thrown from the minors' position would have reached a concrete area 150 yards away.