Court Opinion

ID: 9743435
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:33:28.379663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:39.726917
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE WELCH, dissenting: I dissent because I find that, even viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, as I must, no rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Moore, 171 Ill. 2d 74, 95 (1996). The State has failed to present sufficient satisfactory evidence not only that the fire in this case was intentionally set with gasoline serving as an incendiary agent but that it was set by the defendant. The State posits that the fire was intentionally set with gasoline. The record contains no eyewitness testimony concerning the cause and origin of the fire. Numerous wood, tile, and carpet samples taken from various locations in the buildings were subjected to laboratory analysis that proved negative for the presence of gasoline. No gasoline containers or other vessels suitable for the storage and application of accelerants were found at the fire scene. Therefore, the State had to rely exclusively on expert testimony to prove its case. Chief among the State’s expert witnesses was Clyde Goin, an arson investigator employed by the office of the Illinois State Fire Marshall, who opined that the fire had multiple origins in the north, middle, and south buildings and was caused by a poured accelerant consisting of between one quart and one gallon of gasoline in the north building, one-half gallon to two gallons of gasoline in the middle building, and one quart of gasoline in the south building. Neither party quarrels with Goin’s general expertise in the field of arson investigation, nor do I. What I do quarrel with, and what the record bears out, is the inadequate investigative technique Goin employed in reaching his conclusions. Goin acknowledged on cross-examination that before settling on a poured accelerant as the cause of a fire, a prudent arson investigator must eliminate all other causes by taking into account such factors as the effects of flashover, air flow, hot gases, melted plastics, and building collapse. Yet in formulating his conclusions, Goin was unaware of and did not take into account the following: the building contents and their locations, the manner in which the fire debris was excavated from the buildings, the fire loads of the buildings, the composition of the roofing material that collapsed in the middle building, the condition of the buildings’ electrical systems, the condition of the buildings’ natural gas systems, the composition of the ceilings in the north and middle buildings, the contents of the attic in the middle building, the contents stored above the mezzanine in the south building, whether there was padding under the carpeting and, if so, the composition of the padding, whether the windows were open or closed at the time of the fire, the specific type of tongue-and-groove wood flooring in the middle building, and the ignition temperatures of specific types of plastics. Several days after the fire, two insurance investigators and two local firemen acting as laborers excavated the fire scene by removing large debris from the buildings. Next, they shoveled away the smaller debris by hand. Finally, the buildings were subjected to a high-pressure fire hose that washed out any remaining debris. The photographs marked as People’s exhibits Nos. 12 to 56, upon which Goin relied, were taken during this process. Goin testified that various burn patterns depicted in these photographs were caused by the ignition of poured gasoline. This testimony is flawed, however, because Goin did not take into account and eliminate other factors that could have influenced the shape, size, and direction of the observable burn patterns on the carpeting and flooring. Objects such as tables and display cases, for example, located in the buildings could have shielded or deflected radiant heat, leaving the carpeting or flooring below them free of charring or fire damage. Falldown could have caused some of the burn patterns. The middle roof, for example, collapsed into the building, bringing with it petroleum-based asphalt roofing shingles that can liquefy under intense heat and burn. The evidence established that many items for retail sale located in the buildings had plastic components or were packed with plastic or styrofoam. These substances may have melted and pooled on the floor due to the hot fire, thereby creating or influencing burn patterns. Finally, the burn patterns could have been influenced by the excavation techniques used by the insurance investigators, who used shovels to scrape away debris, including carpeting and padding, down to bare floor. The size and shape of the burn patterns represented in the photographs would not necessarily have mirrored their actual size and shape before the excavation process began. Goin acknowledged on cross-examination that a poured accelerant when ignited will leave a doughnut-shaped burn area. This is because the edge of the accelerant pool burns hotter where its vapors meet with oxygen, while the middle of the pool is cooled by the accelerant. Nevertheless, Goin opined that a poured accelerant was responsible for a burn pattern found on the floor of the middle building, even though the charring was heaviest at the center of the pattern. Indeed, Goin did not testify to the existence of any doughnut-shaped burn patterns in any of the three buildings. Goin testified that the top of the mezzanine fire in the south building was the product of an ignited accelerant. This conclusion was based on observations of burn patterns on the top of the mezzanine. Significantly, Goin did not point to any doughnut-shaped burn patterns in support of this conclusion. Defendant, on the other hand, argued that the mezzanine fire resulted from flashover of very hot gases and flux that migrated through conduction from the middle building to the south building and collected in its ceiling area, only to ignite when a vent hole that was cut in the south building allowed the infusion of oxygen. Fireman William Thouvenin attributed flames coming out of a vent hole he cut in the south building to the ignition of heated gases mixing with the oxygen source created by the vent hole. The resulting fire burned up boxes, business records, and other items that were stored on the top of the mezzanine, thereby causing the burn patterns that Goin attributed to gasoline. Defendant’s theory finds support from People’s éxhibit No. 7, which shows dark smoke rolling out of a vent on the roof of the south building at a time when the middle building was undergoing full room involvement, and People’s exhibit No. 16, which shows a uniform scorching or burn pattern along the entire peak of the south building’s roof. Another troubling aspect of this case is the absence of any evidence of gasoline on the premises or on defendant’s person. Numerous building samples collected for laboratory analysis proved negative for gasoline. More telling, the State did not produce any witness who could testify to the smell of gasoline on the premises or on defendant’s person. This latter omission is particularly important given the large amounts of accelerants defendant is accused of pouring in a relatively short time frame. Terrell Moshbarger, who entered the store at 5:25 p.m. to ask defendant about an automobile that was for sale, testified that he did not smell gasoline. Curt Swartzlander, a trained firefighter and one of the first persons on the fire scene, spoke with defendant at the fire scene. He too made no mention of the smell of gasoline on defendant’s person. Assuming that defendant had poured with great haste approximately three gallons of gasoline throughout the three buildings in the few minutes available to him between the closing of his store and the arrival of the fire department, it is truly remarkable that he was able to do so without acquiring even a whisper of the scent of gasoline on his clothing or person. Moreover, if gasoline were used in the quantities suggested by Goin, then ignition would have been instantaneous and the buildings would have exploded, according to defendant’s expert, Charles Hoffman. Where was the explosion? For the foregoing reasons, I must respectfully dissent.