In This Important New Appellate Ruling, Marijuana Processing That Causes a Fire Can Qualify as Arson  

December 01, 2024
CAC00174
CASE LAW
  • Arson of an inhabited dwelling (451(b) P.C.) 
  • Marijuana Cultivations in a home causing a fire
RULES

Manufacturing concentrated cannabis that results in the burning of a home constitutes willful and malicious conduct for arson of an inhabited dwelling (451(b) P.C.) 

FACTS

The Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office and the Contra Costa Fire Prevention District investigated a house fire in Martinez. It was determined that the defendant was engaged in the manufacture of cannabis honey oil, where the butane gas fumes emitted during the manufacturing process were ignited by lit candles used for illumination. The fire resulted in the destruction of the second story of the house, collapsed the roof and destabilized the walls. The defendant suffered burns to his right leg, arms and face. 

The defendant was convicted of manufacturing of controlled substances (11379.6 H&S) and arson of an inhabited dwelling, 451(b) P.C. He appealed, contending that he did not willfully act with the malicious intent to burn down his home. 

HELD

1DCA ruled that arson is a general intent crime. It does not always involve the willful intent or premedication to burn. Here, the defendant was engaged in a wrongful act – the illegal manufacture of drugs. The highly probable consequences of this conduct could involve the burning of a structure. Malice is presumed from the intentional conduct in the drug manufacturing process. “The chemicals used in the manufacture of controlled substances pose a threat to the public from the use of hazardous materials that could result in fumes, fires and explosions” and “a lab located in a home in a residential community poses risk of fire to the residence and the public at large.” 

The defendant’s arson conviction was upheld. 

Author Notes

As Forrest Gump would say, “Stupid is as stupid does.”  

At trial, an expert witness testified that based upon the evidence recovered at the crime scene, the defendant was making butane honey oil using an “open blast process,” explaining that is dangerous because if “it’s done in a room, butane can settle and...butane itself is highly flammable.” So even just unplugging a lamp could spark and ignite butane, the expert testified. “Any type of flammable, whether it’s a candle, whether it’s a lighter, anything of that nature could...create an ignition point.”  

Previously reported Legal Updates cases involving the crime of arson: 

The Fourth Amendment and Arson Investigations – Recent Cases and Guidelines – LU Ref. #CAB00232 (1/22/24) 

Arson – Definition of an Inhabited Dwelling – LUPC Ref# CAC00126 (12/19/23) 

Consumable Alcohol Used as a Device Designed to Accelerate a Fire – LUPC Ref. #CAB00195 (1/27/23) 

 

View Applicable Disclaimer Notice
Court Case Name
Peo. v. Royal, 1DCA #A166139 (10/24) 2024 WL 4553291, 2024 Cal. App. Lexis 663
Link