Legal Opinion

State v. Murphy

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided June 17, 1930PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, C. J.

It will be noted that the indictment does not charge defendant with having maliciously burned a building. The word “malicious” is a necessary ingredient to charge arson: Or. L., §§ 1931, 1932, 1934, and 1937; 2 R. C. L. 509, § 13; 5 C. J. 559, § 31; 31 C. J. 697, § 246. There is another reason why the crime of arson is not charged in the indictment, and that is, the building burned is not alleged to have been the property of another. An owner of a building may destroy it by fire without being guilty of any crime. In order to constitute arson of any degree it is necessary that the indictment…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. DirectorOregon Supreme Court · 1924
  2. State v. GlasburnOregon Supreme Court · 1925
  3. State v. DruryOregon Supreme Court · 1927

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. LongSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  2. State v. CoxCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2024
  3. State v. DurantUtah Supreme Court · 1983
  4. State v. DurantUtah Supreme Court · 1983

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API