State v. Rosales
2015 SD 6, 860 N.W. 2d 251, 2015 S.D. LEXIS 8 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under South Dakota law, the statutes for intentional damage to property and arson are mutually exclusive; a person cannot be convicted of intentional damage to property if their actions satisfy the statutory elements of arson.
Facts:
- In the early morning of November 21, 2012, Juan Rosales set fire to two unoccupied vehicles owned by Amy Faehnrich and Toby Rolfe.
- The fires were started by igniting a flammable liquid on the vehicles' hoods and windshields.
- The fire from the vehicles spread to a nearby garage, which was approximately four feet away.
- Later that morning, police apprehended Rosales and his wife, Jennifer Reed, and seized two cell phones.
- An investigator removed the batteries from the phones to record their serial numbers.
- The serial numbers were used in an affidavit to obtain a warrant to search the couple's van.
- A search of the van yielded lighters, a gas can, marijuana, and a controlled substance (TFMPP).
Procedural Posture:
- The State of South Dakota indicted Juan Rosales in circuit court (trial court) on five counts, including two counts of intentional damage to property for burning the vehicles.
- Rosales filed a motion to dismiss the intentional damage charges, arguing that the statute did not apply when damage was caused by fire.
- Rosales also filed a motion to suppress evidence found in his van, arguing it was the fruit of an illegal search of his cell phones.
- The circuit court denied both motions.
- A jury found Rosales guilty on all five counts.
- Rosales (appellant) appealed his convictions to the Supreme Court of South Dakota, challenging the denial of his motions.
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 South Dakota's intentional damage to property statute, which explicitly states it does not apply if the damage was accomplished by arson, permit a conviction for setting fire to an unoccupied vehicle when the act may have constituted second-degree arson, a crime requiring the specific intent to destroy the property?
Opinions:
Majority - Zinter, Justice
No. The intentional damage to property statute cannot be used for a conviction when the conduct meets the elements of arson because the statute's plain language makes the two offenses mutually exclusive. The court determined that while Rosales's actions did not constitute first-degree arson or reckless burning (as the vehicles were not 'occupied structures'), they might constitute second-degree arson. Second-degree arson requires the specific intent to 'destroy' an unoccupied structure, whereas the intentional damage statute only requires intent to 'injure, damage, or destroy.' Because the jury was instructed on the broader 'injure, damage, or destroy' standard, it never made a factual finding as to whether Rosales possessed the specific intent to 'destroy' the vehicles, which is necessary for a second-degree arson charge. Therefore, it is impossible to know if his conduct was accomplished by arson, and the convictions for intentional damage to property must be reversed and remanded for a new trial where a jury can determine Rosales's specific intent.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that South Dakota's arson and intentional damage statutes are mutually exclusive, preventing prosecutors from charging the lesser offense when the facts support the specific elements of arson. The case highlights the critical importance of a defendant's mens rea (mental state), establishing that the distinction between intending to 'damage' versus intending to 'destroy' is determinative of the applicable criminal statute. This precedent requires trial courts to issue precise jury instructions on the defendant's specific intent when property is damaged by fire, ensuring that a conviction aligns with the correct statutory framework.
