State v. Baron
| Decision Date | 21 June 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-KA-2626,81-KA-2626 |
| Citation | 416 So.2d 537 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Stanley J. BARON. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ossie Brown, Dist. Atty., Kay Kirkpatrick, John Sinquefield, Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-appellee.
William D. Grimley, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.
*
Defendant, Stanley J. Baron, was convicted by a judge of conspiracy to commit aggravated arson, La.R.S. 14:26; 51, and sentenced to a suspended four-year term of hard labor imprisonment subject to five years' probation conditioned upon his incarceration for one year in jail. Defendant appeals and files six assignments of error.
Defendant contends the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support a conviction. We reject this argument as being wholly without merit. There was abundant evidence that the defendant conspired with two other persons to fire bomb the house trailer in which his wife was residing with her parents and that defendant's co-conspirators actually set fire to the trailer while people were inside. Although the defendant was not present when the fire was set, he knew that his wife and her parents resided in the trailer and that there was a good possibility they would be inside when the fire was set.
Defendant contends that the statute defining the crime of aggravated arson is unconstitutionally vague. This assignment is without merit.
At the time of the offense, La.R.S. 14:51 provided that aggravated arson is " * * * the intentional damaging by any explosive substance or the setting fire to any structure ... or movable whereby it is foreseeable that human life might be endangered." La.R.S. 14:2(5) provides that, in the criminal code, the word "foreseeable" refers to "that which would ordinarily be anticipated by a human being of average reasonable intelligence and perception." This is the sense in which the word foreseeable is commonly understood. Accordingly, the criminal code makes punishable as aggravated arson the intentional setting fire to any structure or movable whereby a person of reasonable intelligence and perception would anticipate that human life might be endangered. These terms are not too vague to serve as a constitutionally adequate definition of a crime. The constitutional guarantee that an accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him requires that penal statutes describe unlawful conduct with sufficient particularity and clarity that ordinary persons of reasonable intelligence are capable of discerning its meaning and conforming their conduct thereto. State v. Payton, 361 So.2d 866 (La.1978). The aggravated arson statute complies with this safeguard.
Defendant contends that this court in State v. Bonfanti, 254 La. 877, 227 So.2d 916 (La.1969) construed the aggravated arson statute to require that the offender must be present at the setting of the fire in order to be guilty of the crime. Defendant's interpretation of the opinion is incorrect. In Bonfanti this court held that aggravated arson includes "acts of setting fire to a building or movable ... which is either occupied or so located that persons might be physically present in or near it when the fire commences and their lives endangered; and that it was not the intention of the legislature by the most recent enactments to enlarge coverage to those who might voluntarily come to the scene of the fire after it has been started." Id. 227 So.2d at 917. The limiting construction of the statute relates to the proximity of possible victims at the time the fire is set, not to the whereabouts of the arsonist.
We have reviewed these assignments and find that they lack any merit. Defendant failed to preserve assigned error number four for our review by his failure to object to the trial court's ruling. The sentence is clearly not excessive,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Broom
...must be capable of discerning the meaning of the statute and conforming his conduct to it. State v. Stilley, supra; State v. Baron, 416 So.2d 537 (La.1982). As noted by the trial judge, in State v. Dousay, 378 So.2d 414 (La.1979), this Court set forth two guidelines that must be considered ......
-
State v. Union Tank Car Co.
... ... Page 385 ... that a penal statute must describe unlawful conduct with sufficient particularity and clarity that ordinary men of reasonable intelligence are capable of discerning its meaning and conforming their conduct thereto. State v. Baron, 416 So.2d 537 (La.1982); State v. Dousay, 378 So.2d 414 (La.1979); State v. Payton, 361 So.2d 866 (La.1978). Likewise, the requirement of adequate standards for ascertaining guilt mandates that a criminal statute mark boundaries "sufficiently distinct for judges and juries to administer the law ... ...
-
State v. Brown
... ... State v. Greco, 583 So.2d 825, 828 (La.1991); State v. Powell, 515 So.2d 1085 (La.1987); State v. Broom, 439 So.2d 357 (La.1983); State v. Stilley, 416 So.2d 928 (La.1982); State v. Baron, 416 So.2d 537 (La.1982). In addition, a penal statute must provide adequate standards by which the guilt or innocence of the accused can be determined. See State v. Broom, supra; State v. Union Tank Car Co., 439 So.2d 377 (La.1983)[;] State v. Barthelemy, 545 So.2d 531, 532-533 (La.1989) ... ...
-
State v. Hair
... ... This is especially true in a commercial setting such as the one before this court ... As to the endangerment phrase, Louisiana courts have found that similar phrases are not unconstitutionally vague. For example, in State v. Baron, 416 So.2d 537, 538 (La.1982), this court held the phrase "foreseeable that human life might be endangered" was not vague because the phrase refers to "that which would ordinarily be anticipated by a human being of average reasonable intelligence and perception." Moreover, in State v. Clark, 325 ... ...