Jackson, Mississippi Criminal Lawyer Explains Charge of Arson of a Dwelling House or First-Degree Arson

Charged with arson in Mississippi?  Following are some facts about the crime of arson of a dwelling house (also known as first-degree arson) in Mississippi.

In order to convict a person of arson, the State must show:

(a) that the defendant willfully and maliciously;

(b) set fire to, or caused to be burned, or aided or procured the burning;

(c) of any dwelling house (or state-supported school);

Mississippi Code Section 97-17-1.  Arson of a dwelling house is a felony, and carries a sentence of five (5) to twenty (20) years in prison.

Under Mississippi arson law, a dwelling house includes not only the house itself, but also any kitchen, shop, barn, stable or other structure that is on the same parcel of land with the house.  It does not matter if the house was occupied or vacant at the time the arson was committed.  Either way, it’s still arson under this statute.

The house may be the property of another person or the defendant himself.  In other words, a person can be charged with arson in Mississippi, even if he sets fire to his own property.

In order to prove arson, the State must prove that the fire was set intentionally.  This is usually proven through the use of an arson investigator.  Arson investigators determine whether a fire was intentionally set, by using scientific testing and investigation.

Negligently or accidentally starting a fire is not arson in Mississippi.  The State is not required to prove that the defendant had a motive to commit arson.  However, if the State has evidence of a motive on the part of the defendant, the State can introduce this evidence at trial.  The defendant can then present evidence that he or she had no motive.

In Mississippi, arson is the type of crime that usually does not have any eyewitnesses to the crime or direct evidence linking the suspect to the crime.  The State almost always attempts to prove arson by circumstantial evidence.  Because of this, there are a large number of defenses to available for a person charged with arson.  A few examples of these defenses include:

(a)  The fire was an accident, rather than intentionally set.  The defendant has the right to offer proof through an independent arson investigator that the fire was not intentionally set;

(b) The defendant can show that he had no reason, or motive, to set fire to the property.  This usually occurs when the State alleges that the defendant set fire to the property because of financial difficulties, or where there was bad blood between the defendant and the victim.  Note that the State is not required to prove motive;

(c) The defendant may show that he was somewhere else at the time the fire was started.  This is known as an alibi defense. 

These are but a few of the defenses available to a person charged with arson in Mississippi.  I am a criminal lawyer who handles arson cases in Jackson, Madison, Ridgeland, and all other areas of Mississippi.  If you’ve been charged with arson, please call me at 601.944.1984 to discuss your case.  There is no charge for an initial consultation.

Carla Hughes Trial Update: Character Witnesses and More Alibi Questions

A discussion of the Carla Hughes murder trial, by Mississippi Criminal Defense Attorney Curt Crowley

Carla Hughes’ defense team called three character witnesses, including her mother, to testify on her behalf Saturday.  The crux of their testimony was that Hughes is a good person, has no violent tendencies, etc., etc.

Character witnesses are typically used to (1) humanize a defendant in the eyes of the jury by showing that the defendant has friends and family who know, love and care about them; and (2) to show the jury that the defendant is not the type of person who would commit the crime charged.  Many times, however, character witnesses can do more harm than good.  If the defendant has committed bad acts in the past, the State is allowed to cross-examine the character witnesses as to those parts of the defendant’s character.  These bad acts would otherwise not be allowed into evidence.  Frequently, we must forego calling character witnesses, in order to prevent the jury from hearing about other less-than-stellar aspects of our clients’ lives.

Carla Hughes, however, is different.  She seems to be the perfect defendant to put character witnesses on the stand.  She’s educated, intelligent, and has no criminal history.  By all accounts, there aren’t really any skeletons in her closet.  Using character witnesses in her defense is a good call, in my opinion.

The defense also revisited the issue of Keyon Pittman’s whereabouts at the time of the murder.  The defense called Antonious Caldwell.  Caldwell was an assistant basketball coach at Chastain at the time Banks was killed.  On the night of the murder, Caldwell remembered seeing Pittman at basketball practice, but did not see him for 30-40 minutes or so after 6:00 p.m.  Caldwell conceded that Pittman could have been in the building, but he just didn’t see him during that time period.

Caldwell’s testimony did not totally destroy Pittman’s alibi, but it did raise more doubt about whether he was at practice at the time of the murder.  Add this to the fact that Pittman’s alibi witness, Bridget Matlock, is not exactly what we would call a “disinterested witness,” and it may just add up to reasonable doubt.

Trial is scheduled to resume Monday.