People v. Goubert
| Docket Number | C096027 |
| Decision Date | 01 May 2023 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANKLIN ALAN GOUBERT, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Following a bench trial, the trial court found defendant Franklin Alan Goubert guilty of two counts of arson of property and one count of arson of forest land. Defendant appeals, arguing there is insufficient evidence to prove the corpus delicti for two of the counts and insufficient evidence to satisfy the burn element of arson for one of the counts. We conclude there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings and thus affirm.
The prosecution charged defendant with four counts of arson of property and one count of arson of forest land based on five separate fires.
The first fire occurred behind a grocery store on July 7, 2020 at approximately 2:00 a.m. The fire occurred near homeless encampments, and it burned the interior of a recreational vehicle and less than one acre of vegetation consisting mostly of grass. Chief Ray Barber of the Red Bluff Fire Department (the fire department) saw defendant at the scene observing the fire.
The second fire, which occurred at approximately 12:00 a.m. on August 30, 2020, was a small vegetation fire in an empty field near train tracks. The fire burned a shopping cart and a pile of vegetation. Captain Matthew Shobash of the fire department excluded potential causes of the fire-including cooking items, children, smoking material, natural causes equipment failure, and train malfunction-and expressed the opinion that someone lit the fire. Defendant reported the fire, and Captain Shobash saw defendant near the fire.
The third fire, located behind a restaurant, occurred on December 10, 2020 (the restaurant fire). The fire burned a pile of items comprised of garbage, vegetation, and sticks. Captain Shobash saw defendant at the scene of the fire, and defendant admitted he "started the fire to clean up the area."
On May 3, 2021, the fire department responded to the fourth fire located inside a drainpipe within a creek bed (the drainpipe fire). Chief Barber testified the pipe was not "actually" damaged, but described approximately two feet of "heavy charring" on the inside of the pipe and stated the fire burned the inside of the pipe. He also expressed the opinion that someone built the fire by stuffing brush and twigs into the pipe, and then lit the materials on fire. Defendant's camp-where he was living at the time-was only a few feet away from the drainpipe, and the fire department described the fire as an "outside open fire for warming or cooking." Chief Barber visited defendant's camp later that day, and defendant stated he did not know about the fire. At a later interview with Chief Barber and Detective Sean Baxter, defendant admitted he started the fire.
The final fire occurred near a railroad at approximately 3:00 a.m. on July 13, 2021, and burned grass, brush, and vegetation. Chief Barber saw defendant being escorted away from the fire while holding a hoe and a rake. Homeless encampments were nearby, including defendant's camp, and after eliminating electrical and lightening causes, the fire department determined a "hot start of some sort" caused the fire. Defendant initially maintained he did not start the fire, but ultimately admitted to starting it.
At trial, Chief Barber testified it is uncommon to see the average citizen at multiple fires, and Captain Shobash testified it is uncommon to see someone at multiple fires unless they are affiliated with the fire department. The trial court also heard testimony that defendant admitted to starting multiple fires. Defendant told Detective Baxter he set fires for a purpose, either to clean up brush, improve the area, or for some other purpose. Defendant also told Detective Baxter he normally used a lighter to start fires, and he believed "he had above average knowledge of fire."
The trial court found defendant guilty of two counts of arson of property, pertaining to the restaurant and drainpipe fires, and one count of arson of forest land, pertaining to the fire that occurred on July 13, 2021. The court sentenced defendant to the midterm of four years for arson of forest land as the principal term and one-third the midterm for each arson of property conviction, for a total of five years four months in prison to be served consecutively.
Defendant appeals.
Defendant makes two assertions on appeal: (1) there is insufficient evidence to prove the corpus delicti of the restaurant fire and the drainpipe fire; and (2) there is insufficient evidence to satisfy the burn element of arson as to the drainpipe fire. We find no merit in these arguments.
"When the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a criminal conviction is challenged on appeal, 'the court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below.'" (In re Jesse L. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 161, 165.) In doing so," 'we must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact that the trier of fact could reasonably have deduced from the evidence. [Citation.] Thus, if the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, . . . that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant reversal.'" (In re V.V. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1020, 1026.) We cannot set aside a judgment of conviction unless it" 'clearly appear[s] that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient evidence to support it.'" (People v. Flores (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 855, 871.)
Under the corpus delicti rule, the prosecution must prove "the corpus delicti of a crime . . . independently from an accused's extrajudicial admissions." (People v Jennings (1991) 53 Cal.3d 334, 364.) "The corpus delicti consists of two elements: (1) the injury or loss or harm; and (2) a criminal agency causing the harm." (People v. Ott (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 118, 130.) Criminal agency requires proof that a human being's intentional act caused the injury or harm. (Id. at pp. 130-131.) Circumstantial evidence may provide the requisite proof, and the prosecution need not prove the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Wright (1990) 52 Cal.3d 367, 404.) Rather," 'a slight or prima facie showing' permitting an inference of injury, loss, or harm from a criminal agency" is enough. (People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1181.)
When a defendant is charged with arson, "[a]ll that is needed to establish the corpus delicti, in addition to the actual burning, is that the fire was intentional or of incendiary origin." (People v. Clagg (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 209, 212.) In this context, incendiary origin means the fire was deliberate and intentional, not accidental or unintentional. (People v. Andrews (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 69, 75 (Andrews II).) Circumstantial evidence such as the defendant's proximity to the fire, the time and method of the fire, and other "circumstances snapping the long arm of coincidence" may also establish the corpus delicti. (People v. Andrews (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 242, 245 (Andrews I).) However, evidence that property is destroyed by fire alone is insufficient to establish the corpus delicti. (People v. Simonsen (1895) 107 Cal. 345, 347.)
There Is Sufficient Evidence To Establish
Defendant contends the prosecution did not establish the corpus delicti of the restaurant fire because there was "no testimony regarding how the fire actually started" and no determination "that a person had started the fire." Defendant points to no authority requiring specific testimony as to the cause of a fire to support a finding of the corpus delicti in an arson case. To the contrary, evidence which establishes" '[a] slight or prima facie showing permitting the reasonable inference that a crime was committed, is sufficient.'" (People v Wright, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 404.) That is the case here.
In arson cases, it is common for the defendant to place items in a pile and light the pile on fire. (See, e.g., People v. Atkins (2001) 25 Cal.4th 76, 80 []; People v. Torres (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 849, 854 []; People v. Jones (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 853, 858 []; In re Stonewall F. (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 1054, 1058 [minors "made a pile of leaves and grass . . . and set it afire"]; People v. Wolfeart (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 653, 654 [].) Here, the fact that the garbage, vegetation, and sticks that caught fire were placed in a small pile permits a reasonable inference that someone created the pile and ignited it, thus establishing criminal agency.
More importantly, the fire department saw defendant at the scene of the fire, and the restaurant fire shared commonalities with the other fires. We may consider the evidence presented regarding the other fires to determine whether the corpus delicti of the restaurant fire was established because" '[t]he coincidence of a series of fires tends to rebut the possibility that the one in question was the result of an accident.'" (Andrews I, supra, 222 Cal.App.2d at p. 246.)
The trial court heard testimony that the fire department saw defendant at four out of the five suspicious fires, and that seeing someone at multiple fires is unusual. The fifth suspicious fire further occurred...
To continue reading
Request your trial