State v. Doe

144 Idaho 819 (2007) · Supreme Court of Idaho · November 23, 2007

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed a juvenile court finding that John Doe engaged in conduct that would constitute malicious injury to property under Idaho Code § 18-7001 if committed by an adult. The court held that transferred intent supported the finding of malice where Doe intentionally set fire to weeds and the fire spread to an apartment building and personal property. The court declined to consider Doe’s separate argument concerning ownership of the weeds because it had not been raised before the district court.

Court
Supreme Court of Idaho
Writing for the Court
Eismann, Chief Justice; Burdick, Justice; Horton, Justice
Jurisdiction
Idaho
Decision date
November 23, 2007
Procedural posture
John Doe appealed a juvenile magistrate court finding that he was within the purview of the Juvenile Corrections Act because his conduct would have constituted malicious injury to property if committed by an adult. The district court affirmed, the Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed by applying transferred intent, and the Idaho Supreme Court granted review.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court independently reviews the magistrate's decision, with due regard for the district court's intermediate appellate decision. On a petition for review of a Court of Appeals decision, the Court directly reviews the lower court's decision while giving serious consideration to the Court of Appeals' views.
Precedential value
Published Idaho Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
John Doe v. State of Idaho
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureappellate procedureburden of proofevidencestatutory interpretation

Practice areas

juvenile lawcriminal lawcriminal procedureevidenceappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the malicious-injury-to-property element of intent when Doe did not intend to burn the apartment complex or its contents.
  2. Whether the issue of whether the weeds were property not owned by Doe could be considered on appeal when Doe did not raise it in the magistrate court or before the district court.

Holdings

  1. The common-law doctrine of transferred intent is not limited to homicide cases and applies to malicious injury or destruction of property. A defendant's intent to commit a wrongful act against property may satisfy the malice requirement when the act instead damages unintended property.
  2. The Supreme Court would not consider Doe's argument that the State failed to prove the weeds were not his property because he did not raise that issue before the district court.

Key quotations

“Under the common-law doctrine of ‘transferred intent’ if an accused attempts to injure one person and an unintended victim is injured because of the act, the accused’s intent to injure the intended victim is transferred to the injury of the unintended victim, even though the wounding was accidental or unintentional.” (821)
In this case, Doe intentionally set fire to property not his own (the weeds in the vacant lot) and the fire spread to other property (the apartment complex and the personal property in the apartment). That was sufficient to show that he maliciously injured or destroyed such other property. (822)

Factual background

Thirteen-year-old John Doe intentionally set weeds in a vacant lot on fire after his brother had started and extinguished a smaller fire. Doe allowed the fire to grow despite being told to extinguish it, and the fire ultimately spread twenty to thirty feet to an apartment complex. The fire substantially damaged the complex and destroyed personal property inside an apartment.

Procedural history

The State filed a Juvenile Corrections Act petition alleging that Doe committed conduct constituting felony malicious injury to property under Idaho Code § 18-7001. After an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate found the allegations proven beyond a reasonable doubt and denied Doe's motion for judgment of acquittal based on insufficient proof of intent. The district court affirmed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on transferred-intent grounds. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the magistrate court's judgment.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…