Your client was charged with arson. You find one precedent on point. That court articulated a four-part test for arson. That test requires: 1) the intentional or reckless disregard of an apparent risk, 2) burning, 3) of a dwelling, 4) of another. The only element at issue was whether the element of burning was satisfied. The facts of the precedent revealed that a Defendant started a fire that caused the charring of two walls in a building. The court held that charring was sufficient to satisfy the burning element. The court reasoned that some damage to the structure caused by fire is required. The court noted that substantial damage or destruction of the structure is not required to commit arson.

IN your client's case the only issue is whether the burning element is satisfied. Your client threw a match into a waste-paper basket. The basket smoldered. Even though smoke blackened the walls in the building, the walls were not charred. The heat from the fire activated the fire sprinklers, which doused the fire.

a. Draft an argument analyzing why the burning element of arson is not satisfied.

b. DRaft an argument analyzing why the burning element of arson is satisfied.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

a Argument analyzing why the burning element of arson is not satisfied In this case the act of throwing a match into a wastepaper basket resulted in t... View the full answer