State v. Cross
2012 La. App. LEXIS 222, 91 So. 3d 995, 2012 WL 638055 (2012)
Rule of Law:
A conviction for arson with intent to defraud requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed an act of arson (even slight damage like scorching) and did so with specific intent to defraud, with appellate courts reviewing whether any rational trier of fact could have found these elements proven.
Facts:
- In September 2008, James Carroll, who had previously employed John G. Cross for handyman work, traveled to Denver, Colorado, leaving his home secured and instructing Cross to address plumbing issues.
- While Carroll was away, his secretary, Daidre Boulton, reported that the home's security system and air conditioning were not working, and she could not restore them despite checking breakers.
- Cross informed Carroll that the house suffered a power surge or lightning strike, causing electrical wires in the attic to overheat and erupt in fire, damaging the electrical panel, and requiring $750 for immediate replacement.
- Cross subsequently showed Carroll charred wires in the attic, a burned stud, and a replaced electrical panel, claiming extensive damage requiring full house rewiring at a cost of $20,000-$22,000, and falsely denying the existence of a lightning rod.
- Independent contractor David Wilson and electrician Jeff Wyant inspected the damage and concluded it was inconsistent with lightning or a power surge, finding evidence of an external flame source and confirming the presence of a lightning rod.
- Louisiana State Police Fire Marshall Lt. Rick Abbott, an arson expert, also investigated and determined the damage to the meter, breaker box, and attic wiring was caused by an external flame, staged to simulate an electrical malfunction.
- Cross attempted to dissuade Carroll from involving his insurance company, stating they wouldn't cover damage without a lightning rod, but then offered to rewire the entire house for the exact amount the insurance company would pay.
Procedural Posture:
- John G. Cross was initially charged with simple arson, a violation of La. R.S. 14:52.
- The bill of information was amended just before trial to charge Cross with arson with intent to defraud, a violation of La. R.S. 14:53.
- A six-person jury in the trial court convicted John G. Cross by a unanimous verdict of guilty as charged of arson with intent to defraud.
- The trial court adjudicated Cross a second-felony habitual offender and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment at hard labor, ordered him to pay a $2,000 fine, and make restitution to the victim in the amounts of $1,355 and $750.
- Cross filed a motion to reconsider his sentence, which the trial court heard and denied.
- Cross appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does sufficient evidence exist to support a conviction for arson with intent to defraud when a defendant, who had exclusive access to a home, created fake electrical damage with an external flame and then attempted to profit by misrepresenting the cause and cost of repairs?
Opinions:
Majority - BROWN, Chief Judge
Yes, sufficient evidence exists to support the conviction for arson with intent to defraud. The court applied the `Jackson v. Virginia` standard of appellate review, which asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution had the burden to prove both that Cross committed an act of arson on Carroll’s electrical system and that he did so with the specific intent to defraud, which can be inferred from the circumstances and his conduct. The evidence showed that Cross, having established confidence with Carroll and gaining exclusive access, created the illusion of an electrical malfunction. Expert testimony from a general contractor, an electrician, and an arson investigator unanimously contradicted Cross's story of lightning or a power surge, concluding instead that the damage to the electrical wires, meter, and breaker box was intentionally caused by an external flame or torch, designed to simulate an electrical problem. Cross's subsequent actions, including lying about the presence of a grounding rod, exaggerating the damage, and proposing a scheme to profit from insurance payouts, evinced a clear intent to defraud Carroll or his insurance carrier. The jury's credibility determination was rational, and the evidence was sufficient to conclude that Cross had the access, opportunity, and motive to commit arson with the specific intent to defraud. Additionally, the court amended the sentence by deleting a $2,000 fine, finding it unauthorized under the habitual offender statute, La. R.S. 15:529.1, even though the underlying statute for arson might permit it.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high bar for overturning a jury's factual findings on appeal, particularly concerning specific intent, which can be inferred from circumstantial evidence and a defendant's pattern of conduct. It demonstrates how a web of deceitful actions, combined with expert testimony disproving a defendant's narrative, can strongly establish intent to defraud. Furthermore, the case serves as a reminder for practitioners about the specific limitations of sentence enhancement statutes, such as habitual offender laws, which may preclude fines even if the underlying offense allows them. Future cases will cite this for the standard of review regarding sufficiency of evidence for arson with intent to defraud and the specific sentencing limitations under Louisiana's habitual offender statute.
