Court Opinion

ID: 9587785
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:26:13.484744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:55.591250
License: Public Domain

Judge John
dissenting.
The majority reasons that legislative deletion of “attempt,” see 1993 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 539, § 1150, from N.C.G.S. § 14-49.1 (1997), *192now requires evidence of significant measurable damage for a defendant to be convicted of violation of the statute and that evidence of such damage was not presented in the case sub judice. I do not agree and therefore respectfully dissent.
The majority cites no case law or statutory authority to support its imposition of a substantial measurable damage element to complete an offense under G.S. § 14-49.1. Concededly, the cases relied upon by the majority indeed involved serious damage, but the extent and nature of damage was not an issue therein. Moreover, the evidence in the instant case was not of an attempt, but rather of ignition by defendant of his blue jeans, resulting in scorching and staining of the jail floor and filling the jail with heavy smoke requiring evacuation of five inmates. See State v. McAlister, 59 N.C. App. 58, 60, 295 S.E.2d 501, 502 (1982), disc. review denied, 307 N.C. 471, 299 S.E.2d 226 (1983) (completion of offense distinguished from attempt, i.e., an act done with, specific intent to commit a crime but which falls short of actual commission); see also State v. Shaw, 305 N.C. 327, 344, 289 S.E.2d 325, 334 (1982) (actual burning completes crime; no evidence of an attempt to burn which failed); and State v. Cockerham, 129 N.C. App. 221, 225-26, 497 S.E.2d 831, 833-34, disc. review denied, 348 N.C. 503, S.E.2d (1998) (matches nearby and gasoline thrown on individual but never ignited supported attempt to injure maliciously with incendiary material). This evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that damage, albeit not “substantial,” occurred. See State v. Oxendine, 305 N.C. 126, 129-30, 286 S.E.2d 546, 548 (1982) (evidence of heavy smoke and bum patches on wall sufficient to constitute “burning” for arson even though damage minor and repairable).
In short, I do not believe that the permanency and extent of damage constitute elements of the offense proscribed by G.S. § 14-49.1. Hence, evidence herein that the floor stain was almost completely removed and that smoke from the fire at issue was cleared within approximately thirty minutes was not dispositive as a matter of law to show no damage had occurred. Accordingly, I vote no error.