Case Name: STATE v. COLLINS
Court: Idaho Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Idaho
Decision Date: 1892-12-31
Citations: 3 Idaho 467
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. COLLINS.
Judges: Sullivan, C. J., and Morgan, J., concur.
Reporter: Idaho Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: ?–468

Head Matter:
(December 31, 1892.)
STATE v. COLLINS.
[31 Pac. 1048.]
Arson-City Jail an Inhabited Building.
Inhabited Building. — 1. Under the statutes of Idaho any building occupied by any person is an inhabited building.
Arson. — 2. An attempt to burn a city jail while occupied by prisoners is arson. 3. An attempt to commit arson is a crime.
APPEAL from District Court, Bingham County.
Sample Orr, for Appellant.
The building should be owned or possessed by another person. (3 Chitty’s Criminal Law, 1121; 2 Bussell on Crimes, 487, 488.) The indictment was fatally defective, in that it did not allege that the building which is alleged to be a jail was used as a jail, or that it was an erection capable of sheltering human beings, or that the same had usually been occupied by any person lodging therein at night. (Code, secs. 7001, 7002.) There is no such crime as an attempt to commit arson in the state of Idaho.
George H. Boberts, Attorney General, for the State.
A jail is an inhabited “dwelling-house,” within the statutes against arson, and “a jail” is a house. (Bishop’s Statutory Crimes, secs. 207, 289; Bishop’s Criminal Law, see. 105.) The ownership need not be alleged, or, if alleged, it need not be alleged in the occupant. (People v. Fisher, 51 Cal. 319; Sackett’s Instructions to Juries, secs. 21, 22; Commonwealth v, Flynn, 3 Cush. 529; Bishop’s Directions and Forms, sec. 183; People v. Simpson, 50 Cal. 304.) There need be no allegation of ownership where the arson is of a public building. (Bishop’s Criminal Law, see. 36, and eases cited, note 3, p. 17.) When upon the face of the indictment the facts charged show that there was an attempt to commit a crime punishable by law, which is of such a character as to" come within the Bevised Statutes, the offense is well charged. (Commonwealth v„ Flynn, 3 Cush. 529.)

Opinion:
HUSTON, J.
Tbe defendant was convicted at tbe June term of the district court for the county of Bingham of the crime of an attempt to commit arson of the second degree, and sentenced to confinement in state prison for two years, from which judgment and sentence defendant appeals to this court. The only errors charged by defendant, which we deem it important to consider, are in the giving by the court of certain instructions.
The giving of instruction No. 3 by the court is charged as error. That instruction was as follows: "Any building which has usually been occupied by any person lodging therein at night is an inhabited building, within the meaning of this chapter." There was no error in this instruction. The building attempted to be burned by defendant was the jail of the city of Idaho Falls, and was at the time occupied by defendant and another as prisoners. The instruction asked by defendant, and refused by the court, to the effect that the town (city in this case) was incapable of owning property, was properly refused. It is urged by counsel for defendant, in his brief, that there is no such offense known to the statutes of Idaho as "an attempt to commit arson." This exception does not appear in any bill of exceptions or assignment of errors, and, if counsel had taken the trouble to read section 7235 of the Revised Statutes of Idaho, it would probably not have appeared in his brief. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Sullivan, C. J., and Morgan, J., concur.