Caseflicks

Supreme Court of North Carolina • 1861

State v. Lauglin

53 N.C. 354

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case applies broad causation principles to arson but strictly requires the prosecution to prove the precise statutorily protected structure alleged in the indictment.

Background

Lauglin was charged with feloniously burning a barn containing grain or corn. The case raised two questions: whether a person who maliciously sets fire to one building may be guilty of felony when the fire probably spreads to and burns a dwelling or grain-filled barn, and whether proof that he burned a corn crib will support an indictment charging the burning of a barn.

The trial court ruled that a defendant is responsible for the probable consequences of the initial unlawful burning. It also permitted the case to proceed despite proof involving a crib rather than a barn. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court on the first question but reversed because the proof did not establish the offense charged in the indictment, ordering a venire de novo.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether maliciously setting fire to one building becomes a capital felony when the probable consequence is the burning of a dwelling-house or a barn containing grain.

Holding

Yes. A person is criminally responsible for the natural and probable consequences of the initial malicious and unlawful burning.

Reasoning

The Court accepted the trial court's conclusion that a defendant who willfully and maliciously begins an unlawful fire is answerable for its natural and probable results. Thus, if the fire foreseeably reaches and burns a dwelling-house or a barn containing grain, the defendant may be guilty of the felony associated with burning that protected structure.

The Court relied on an analogy from the common law. Maliciously burning one's own dwelling is itself only a serious misdemeanor, but it becomes a felony when nearby dwellings of other persons catch fire as an immediate and necessary consequence. The same causation principle applies when an unlawful fire set at one structure foreseeably destroys a dwelling or grain-filled barn.

Issue #2

Whether a defendant indicted for feloniously burning a barn containing grain or corn may be convicted on proof that he burned a crib containing corn.

Holding

No. A corn crib is not legally the same as a barn, and the record did not establish that the two structures were in fact the same.

Reasoning

A conviction must conform to the offense charged. Lauglin could be convicted on this indictment only if a barn and a crib had the same legal meaning or if the evidence showed that the particular structure described as a crib was actually a barn. The bill of exceptions contained no such proof.

The Court treated the words according to their ordinary and legal meanings. A barn is a covered building used to secure grain, hay, flax, and similar agricultural products, and English law specifically recognized the burning of a barn containing grain or corn as a felony. A crib, by contrast, was understood in the United States as a small building raised on posts to store Indian corn.

Because barns and cribs are different types of buildings ordinarily used for different purposes, burning a crib with corn in it was a different offense from burning a barn with corn in it. The governing statute made the burning of a grain-filled barn a felony, but did not extend that felony protection to a crib. Any decision to cover cribs as well was for the Legislature, not the Court.