State v. Murphy
214 La. 600, 38 So. 2d 254, 1948 La. LEXIS 1003 (1948)
Rule of Law:
For a lesser offense to be a responsive verdict to a greater offense under Louisiana law (prior to Act No. 161 of 1948), the lesser offense must be an “included offense,” meaning all its essential elements are also essential elements of the greater offense.
Facts:
- Dorris Murphy intentionally damaged by explosive substance and set fire to the structure No. 829 Dumaine Street, located in the City of New Orleans.
- The structure at No. 829 Dumaine Street was a dwelling.
- Human beings were present in the dwelling at the time of the fire.
- It was foreseeable that human life might be endangered by Murphy's actions in setting fire to the dwelling.
Procedural Posture:
- Dorris Murphy was prosecuted under a bill of information in a trial court for the crime of aggravated arson.
- During the trial, the judge charged the jury that a verdict of guilty of simple arson would be responsive and instructed them to fix the amount of damage if they found Murphy guilty of simple arson.
- Murphy objected to this jury charge and reserved a bill of exception.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Murphy guilty of 'simple arson in the sum of $150.'
- Murphy was sentenced to imprisonment for 7 months by the trial court.
- Murphy filed a motion for a new trial, reiterating her objection to the responsiveness of the verdict.
- Murphy subsequently filed a motion in arrest of judgment, again challenging the verdict's responsiveness.
- Murphy appealed her conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
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 the crime of simple arson constitute an 'included offense' within the definition of aggravated arson, thereby allowing a jury to convict a defendant charged with aggravated arson of simple arson, under Article 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended by Act No. 147 of 1942?
Opinions:
Majority - O’Neill, Chief Justice
No, a verdict of guilty of simple arson is not responsive to an indictment for aggravated arson under the governing law. The court held that the case was governed by Article 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by Act No. 147 of 1942, because Act No. 161 of 1948 came into effect after the prosecution. Under Article 386, a judge should charge the jury on 'included offenses' of lesser magnitude. The court compared the definitions of aggravated arson (Article 51 of the Criminal Code) and simple arson (Article 52 of the Criminal Code). Aggravated arson focuses on the intentional damaging or setting fire to property where it is foreseeable that human life might be endangered, making the ownership of the property irrelevant. Its gravamen is the endangering of human life. Simple arson, conversely, focuses on the intentional damaging or setting fire to the property of another, without the owner's consent. Its gravamen is the damaging of another's property without consent. The court found that simple arson contains two essential elements not present in aggravated arson: 1) the property must belong to another person, and 2) the act must be done without the owner's consent. Conversely, aggravated arson contains the essential element of foreseeability of human life being endangered, which is not an element of simple arson. Therefore, simple arson is not an 'included offense' of aggravated arson because their essential elements are not subsumed within each other. The bill of information for aggravated arson did not allege ownership, consent, or amount of damage, further supporting that these are not essential for aggravated arson. Consequently, the jury's verdict of simple arson was not responsive to the charge of aggravated arson.
Concurring - Hamiter, Hawthorne, and McCaleb, JJ.
Justices Hamiter, Hawthorne, and McCaleb concurred in the decree, meaning they agreed with the ultimate outcome of annulling the conviction and dismissing the prosecution, but did not provide separate reasoning for their concurrence.
Analysis:
This case establishes a strict 'elements test' for determining responsive verdicts in Louisiana, particularly for offenses charged under criminal statutes existing before the 1948 amendment. It underscores that a lesser offense cannot be considered 'included' within a greater offense if it requires proof of elements not found in the greater offense, even if both offenses share some common factual circumstances. The ruling reinforces the principle of due process by ensuring that defendants are only convicted of crimes whose elements were properly alleged and proven and for which they had adequate notice. Future cases must carefully compare statutory elements when assessing whether a lesser offense is a truly 'included' offense, rather than merely an offense arising from similar conduct.
