Fillman v. State
| Decision Date | 27 February 1969 |
| Citation | 251 A.2d 557 |
| Parties | Paul Knorr FILLMAN, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Delaware |
A. Richard Barros, of Brown, Shiels & Barros, Dover, for defendant below, appellant.
William Swain Lee and William M. Chasanov, Deputy Attys. Gen., Georgetown, for plaintiff below, appellee.
The determinative issue in this arson case is whether the structure burned was a 'dwelling house' within the meaning of 11 Del.C. § 352. * We think not.
The defendant Paul Knorr Fillman was convicted of arson in the second degree under § 352. The undisputed evidence is that the building involved was a dilapidated four room structure, in a rural area, which had not been used for habitation for more than 5 years prior to the fire; that its windows were broken out and its one door left open; that it had no water, gas, or electric, and was empty of any furniture or furnishings; that it was not fit for habitation at the time of the fire.
At common law, it is agreed, this building would not have been considered a 'dwelling house' subject to arson. The term 'dwelling house' was a word of art at common law. Historically, the crime of arson is against the security of habitation--not the safety of property. Where a building, although formerly used as a dwelling, has been abandoned for such purpose, has been unoccupied for a prolonged period of time, and has become unfit for habitation, it is deemed to have lost its character as a dwelling house and is not subject as such to common law arson. 5 Am.Jur. (2d) 'Arson and Related Offenses' § 17; 6 C.J.S. Arson § 9; Annotation, 44 A.L.R. (2d) 1456, 1460.
Unless there is some indication in our statutes to the contrary, the common law conception of a 'dwelling house' in the law of arson must be deemed to prevail. No such indication to the contrary appears in § 352.
There is § 353, however, which provides:
The Superior Court held that the structure here involved was a vacant dwelling house within the meaning of § 353 and that, by virtue thereof, the structure was subject to arson in the second degree under § 352.
In our view, § 353 does not define the basic term 'dwelling house' as that term is used in § 352. The provisions of § 353 deal with procedures governing cases which involve a certain category of dwelling houses, i.e., vacant or unoccupied ones; but § 353 does not alter or change the common law meaning of the basic term which is deemed incorporated in § 352. Otherwise stated: if, as here, a structure has lost its character as a 'dwelling house' by reason of abandonment, disrepair, and unfitness for habitation, its status as a 'dwelling house' within the meaning of § 352 is not revived by virtue of § 353. Accordingly, we hold § 353 inapplicable here. Compare Henderson v. State, 105 Ala. 82, 16 So. 931 (1895); Danks v. State, Del., 229 A.2d 789 (1967).
This conviction of arson in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Reeves
...provisions. 16 However, the crime of arson continued to be a predicate offense for the crime of felony murder. Like Fillman v. State, 251 A.2d 557 (Del.,1969), this Court infers from the circumstances that the Legislature intended to include only the common-law definitions of the crime of a......
-
State v. Elswick
...cases either had obvious indicia of disrepair signaling an intent to abandon, or the owner's intent did not control. See Fillman v. State, 251 A.2d 557 (Del. 1969) (observing that the structure was dilapidated; the windows were broken; and its one door was left open and it had no furniture)......
-
State v. Miner
...but had been put on the market for sale, and was visited daily by a caretaker in the two months it had been unoccupied. Fillman v. State, 251 A.2d 557 (Del.Super.Ct.1969), found abandonment only where the structure in question, which was the subject of arson, had no windows, no furniture, n......
-
State v. Williams
...during its vacancy. In support of his position, defendant cites cases from other jurisdictions with similar statutes. In Fillman v. State, 251 A.2d 557 (Del.1969), the defendant was convicted of burning a dilapidated structure which had not been used for habitation for more than five years,......