Opinion ID: 2376602
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Was there sufficient evidence of the incendiary nature of the fire to sustain a verdict?

Text: Defendant argues that in a criminal case, relying upon circumstantial evidence, to warrant a conviction, the circumstances must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that the respondent is guilty. The short answer to that argument is found in the proper test which is in weighing circumstantial evidence to determine if guilt exists as in the case of direct or testimonial evidence, namely, whether it is sufficient to generate a belief of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Ray, 43 N.J. 19 (1964). The conclusion that Mills started the fire is corroborated by the Rev. Beemer's testimony of Mills' admission thereof to his wife. With this fact established the question then is whether the fire was accidentally or intentionally started. The pre-trial admission of defendant that the fire originated from his carelessly tossed match is contradictory of his trial advanced theory that the conflagration was initiated by a fire in the ceiling or wall from a cause with which he had no connection. For the fire to have thus started from either or both causes simultaneously is a coincidence which strains believability. Far more believable than the tossed match or ceiling or wall theories, is that advanced by the experts, i.e., the fire could not have reached its terrific intensity in the short period of time here involved without the use of accelerants and hence was not of an accidental nature. This testimony coupled with defendant's admitted unexplained presence in the kitchen at the inception of the conflagration, when weighed against defendant's unlikely theories, furnish ample believable testimony to generate a belief beyond a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt.