Opinion ID: 2629177
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of evidence regarding aggravated arson and first-degree felony murder

Text: The defendant advances the following two arguments: (1) The defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the property damaged was one in which another person had any interest, an essential element of aggravated arson. He acknowledges that any interest may include a leasehold interest but argues the arson investigator's testimony that Eads was a renter was insufficient to show a leasehold interest as a matter of law. See State v. Rodriguez, 269 Kan. 633, 635, 8 P.3d 712 (2000) (The words `any interest' cover more than just a `fee simple interest' and include, for example, a leaseholder's interest in real property.). (2) The State failed to prove he aided or abetted in the aggravated arson in that there was insufficient evidence that he intentionally promoted or assisted in the commission of aggravated arson or that the aggravated arson was reasonably foreseeable from the crime of aggravated burglary or aggravated robbery. He argues the State did not prove that he was ever in Eads' home, that he knowingly participated in or was aware of the arson, that he knew what happened to Eads, or that it was reasonably foreseeable that Steward would burn down the house. When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal case, the standard of review is whether, after review of all the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the appellate court is convinced that a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Beach, 275 Kan. 603, Syl. ¶ 2, 67 P.3d 121 (2003).