Has anyone dealt with the new arson statute? I keep rereading the new section that deals with making arson a third degree felony, but I do not understand the distinction it is making from the original 2nd degree statute in subsection (a)(2). Please help me.

Sara,

Let me caveat my comments by saying I have tried one Arson case and it was under the old statute.

That said I believe the new language was an attempt to correct older wording that created more confusion than it solved.

Essentially, (a)(2)(A)-(F) requires that the defendant started the fire with the intent to damage or destroy a building, habitation, or vehicle.

The problem with this is that in many cases it is difficult to prove that intent in front of jury. Often it is clear that the defendant set the fire but he may have been reckless about whether it would damage or destroy property.

The legislature tried to clarify that these actions constitute Arson also but the old language was problematic.

So, the legislature added (a-2) to cover these situations. Under (a-2)you need only prove the defendant intentionally set the fire or caused the explosion but NOT that he/she intended for damage or destruction, only that he/she was reckless about whether that damage or destruction would occur.

Although crimes under (a-2) are only state jail felonies, section (g) means you can prosecute under other sections of the Arson statute if more serious charges fit, without running into in para materia problems.

At least, that's my understanding.