Colorado Technical University
Unit 3-Crimes Against Property
March 6, 2016
Title: Kennedy v, State, 323 S.E. 2d 169 (Ga. App. 1984)
Facts: On September 23, 1981, a fire erupted in a log cabin due to a hot plate. The hotplate was left on and there was an accelerant of a lamp oil trail close by. Henry Xavier Kennedy, the possessor of the lodge whom was at that point indicted for Arson had quite recently acquired a protection strategy on the property five days before the flame for $40,000. Agents likewise discovered proof that Mr. Kennedy was losing cash from a development business he possessed. Kennedy likewise had a vindication that he ...view middle of the document...
The arraignment demonstrated that the litigant schemed to begin the fire when he wasnâ€™t around. It was additionally demonstrated that pouring an, animate close to the hot plate with the force on isnâ€™t suggestive of a mishap.
c) Appellant claims the prosecutionâ€™s wording regarding his defense of a mishap as a premise for the charge. The trial court specified that the fire was a scene of a crime; and/the offense discovered it as an unacceptable reference. In any case, the court found no blunder in how the scene of the fire was portrayed, it wouldnâ€™t harm the guard from guaranteeing that the fire was a mishap (Kennedy v. State, 323 SE2d 169-Ga: Court of, 2011).
The trial court attributed several cases to rule a reason for err regarding remission of appeal or a new trial, the defenses alibi, or the defense claim of accident. The trial court established the defense counsel had stated no exceptions during the trial courts inquiry; so therefore, the courts find now error (Kennedy v. State, 323 SE 2d 169-Ga: Court of, 2011).
16-3-40 GA codes state that alibi shows the inconceivable possibility of the blameâ€™s vicinity and the litigant contends that the arraignment damaged this by saying â€œconceivableâ€ in the contention charged to the jury. The court didnâ€™t concur with the litigantâ€™s contention the arraignments wording or the charge deceive the jury.
The appellantâ€™s claim of defense was accident; however, it couldnâ€™t be implemented due to the overwhelming evidence possessed by law enforcement. The evidence of a burn pattern due to an accelerant used to strengthen the fire, and the hot plate left on. Due to all the evidence, as well as the fire being classified as treacherous leaves one with the conclusion that the flame is a result of intent. So subsequently, there are no reason for the litigant to base an advance here due to the absence of proof to bolster the case of mishap (Kennedy v. State, 323 SE 2d 169-Ga: Court of, 2011).
Evidence found against Mr. Kennedy regarding his renewal of his $40,000 insurance policy days before the fire as well as the indication of his construction business that was failing proves motive. All this evidence implies that the only one that could have gained from the fire would be Mr. Kennedy.
The defendant was convicted of Arson in my opinion, due to the overwhelming evidence against him. The evidence obtained suggests he arranged the fire, set the hot plate in the on position and then went on to establish his alibi so he could receive the insurance benefits. Speaking of insurance, he actually had his policy changed to receive $40,000 on a claim, and this was done just days prior to the fire starting. As for it being an accident, it is very impossible that one would pour or spill lamp oil around a hot plate, abandon it on and not tidy up the mess from the spill before leaving the house.
Breaking & Entering/Burglary/Home Invasion
Burglary is similar to...