Opinion ID: 2336320
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Second-Degree Arson instruction

Text: Appellant's final claims of error arise from his conviction for first-degree arson. [20] Appellant contends that since the two victims were already dead from gunshot wounds before the home was set on fire, the jury could have believed that the house was not inhabited or occupied by living persons; that it could have found him guilty of second-degree arson [21] and such an instruction should have been given. The Commonwealth contends that the first-degree arson statute is designed to cover the destruction of dwellings, while the second-degree arson statute is designed to cover other situations such as arson for profit. An instruction on a lesser-included offense should be given if the evidence is such that a reasonable juror could doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, but conclude that he is guilty of the lesser-included offense. [22] The evidence in this case would have permitted the jury to conclude that the victims had been killed before the fire was started and the trial court should have instructed the jury as to the lesser-included offense of second-degree arson. It was error for the trial court to refuse the requested second-degree arson instructions and upon remand, the jury should be instructed on such offense.