State v. Lockwood
Citations
- 24 Del. 28
- 1 Boyce 28
- 74 A. 2
- 1909 Del. LEXIS 31
Syllabus
<p>-Arson—Attempt to Commit Arson—Elements of Crime—Intent— “ Malice—Statute.</p> <p>1. The gist of the crime of arson is the danger to the lives of persons who may be dwelling in the house set on fire; and the crime is graded by 'the statute according to the degree of danger to human life it involves.</p> <p>2. Like as the elements of murder are ingredients in the crime of an •assault with intent to commit murder, so the elements of arson are ingredients in the offense of an attempt to commit arson.</p> <p>3. To constitute the offense of an attempt to commit arson, there must be the wilful act or attempt to commit that offense though unaccomplished, as distinguished from the accomplishment of the attempt. There must be the intent which directs and the malice which inspires the acts in both crimes.</p> <p>4. In a prosecution for attempt to commit arson, the character of the instrument employed in the attempt is immaterial. If the attempt to burn be wilful, it matters not whether the method be by direct or in.direct means.</p> <p>5. When the attempt to commit arson is established the intent may be proved by direct evidence, as by the admission and confession of the accused, or by indirect or circumstantial evidence as by the acts, conduct and threats of the accused and the attending circumstances of the attempt.</p> <p>6. The element of malice in the offense of an attempt to commit arson intended by the law, signifies not general malevolence but the intent from which flows an unlawful act, committed without legal justification, and when the act constituting the offense is proved toliave been done, and to have been done wilfully, it is then inferred to have been done mal.Iciously.</p> <p>7. When the jury entertain a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, that doubt must inure to his acquittal. But that doubt must, not be a mere fanciful, vague, indefinable or speculative doubt, but a reasonable, substantial doubt remaining in the minds of the jury after a-caref
Judges: Woolley
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
10 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Brown v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1979-07-20· cited 39×
- State v. DonovanNew York Court of General Session of the Peace· 1914-02-05· cited 26×
- Henderson v. Celanese Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey· 1954-10-11· cited 20×
- In Re CohenNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1952-11-12· cited 11×
- State v. ZurawskiNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1965-12-21· cited 10×
- Crewe Corp. v. FeilerNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1958-04-14· cited 8×
- Henderson v. Celanese Corp.New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1954-04-28· cited 6×
- Schluter v. SchluterNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1951-11-13· cited 4×
- Magich v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co.New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1954-08-31· cited 4×
- Plainfield Trust Co. v. BowlbyNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1953-02-27· cited 1×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.