## Facts

- V.V. and J.H., both 17, went onto a steep, brush-covered hillside behind a residential street in Pasadena during dry conditions.
- V.V. lit a large firecracker and handed it to J.H., who threw it into the dry brush.
- The firecracker exploded and ignited a brush fire that burned about five acres and came within roughly 60–75 feet of a residence.
- A resident heard a loud explosion, saw smoke and flames, observed three youths running from the area, called 911, and later identified V.V. and J.H.
- Another neighbor heard youths reacting excitedly, then heard them say “Let’s go,” followed by running sounds and an explosion; smoke then rose from the hillside.
- J.H. admitted bringing firecrackers to the hill; both minors admitted lighting a firecracker “to make noise.”
- The minors claimed they aimed toward a greener or concrete area, suggesting awareness of ignition risk.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence supported the “malice” element for arson under California Penal Code § 451 when minors intentionally ignited and threw a firecracker into dry brush but did not intend to start a fire or cause harm.
2. How “malice” under § 451 is distinguished from the mental state for recklessly causing a fire under Penal Code § 452.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held the evidence sufficient to establish malice for arson under the circumstances.
- The Court concluded that intentionally igniting and throwing a firecracker amidst dry brush in a residential area, in conscious disregard of a known and serious risk of fire, satisfies § 451 malice even absent intent to burn.
- The Court resolved the conflict between appellate decisions by rejecting the view that lack of intent to harm necessarily defeats arson malice.
- The Court’s ruling supported arson findings for both minors rather than limiting the conduct to reckless burning.

## Legal Principles

- For arson under Penal Code § 451, “malice” does not require intent to cause a fire or to injure; it can be shown by a conscious disregard of a known, serious risk that burning will occur.
- Malice may be inferred from committing an intentional act under circumstances that make the danger of fire apparent.
- Conduct may constitute arson, not merely reckless burning under § 452, when the actor knowingly engages in highly dangerous behavior creating a serious fire risk, even if the actor hopes to avoid ignition.
- Efforts to reduce risk (e.g., aiming toward a less flammable area) can support an inference of risk awareness rather than negate malice.

## Conclusion

The court held that arson malice is satisfied when a defendant intentionally performs an act in obviously hazardous conditions and consciously disregards a known, serious risk of fire, even without a subjective intent to ignite property; applying that rule, the minors’ use of a large firecracker in dry hillside brush supported arson findings.


In re V.V., 51 Cal. 4th 1020 (Cal. 2011)