## Facts

- A 12-year-old student walked to a school bus stop using a customary shortcut across neighboring properties.
- While walking, he found matches, lit them one at a time, blew them out, and threw them to the ground.
- He threw a lit or recently extinguished match near a pile of leaves close to a neighbor’s boat parked near a garage.
- Later that morning, the boat and garage caught fire; the boat was destroyed and the garage and other property sustained extensive damage.
- A fire investigation traced the fire’s origin to the area of the leaf pile along the juvenile’s route.
- The juvenile admitted throwing a lit match in the direction of the leaf pile/boat area but denied intending to start a fire or burn property.

## Issues

1. Whether proof that the juvenile purposely ignited a match, without intent to burn property, satisfies the “purposely starts a fire” element of third-degree arson under N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1(b).
2. Whether the State proved, and the trial court found, that the juvenile recklessly endangered or damaged another’s property as required by N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1(b).
3. Whether the evidence supported only negligence or a lesser offense (such as criminal mischief) rather than third-degree arson.
4. Whether double-jeopardy principles limited further proceedings on an unresolved criminal mischief count arising from the same episode.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division vacated the adjudication for third-degree arson and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the trial court’s arson finding could not rest solely on the conclusion that the juvenile “purposely lit a fire” by striking a match where the judge also found he did not purposely set the boat or garage on fire.
- The court found the record and findings inadequate on the statute’s separate requirement that the actor recklessly endangered or damaged another’s property.
- On remand, the court directed further proceedings consistent with its analysis, including consideration of appropriate offense level and treatment of the unresolved count in light of double-jeopardy concerns.

## Legal Principles

- For third-degree arson under N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1(b), the State must prove (1) the actor purposely started a fire (not merely that the actor purposely ignited a match) and (2) the actor thereby recklessly endangered or damaged another’s property.
- A finding that a defendant did not purposely set the relevant property on fire is inconsistent with sustaining an arson adjudication based only on purposeful ignition of a match.
- Recklessness toward another’s property must be supported by proof and findings that the actor consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk; carelessness or negligence, without more, is insufficient.
- When multiple counts arise from a single episode and one count is left unresolved, double-jeopardy limits may restrict renewed prosecution or additional punishment depending on the procedural posture and overlap of offenses.

## Conclusion

The appellate court set aside the juvenile’s third-degree arson adjudication because the trial court treated purposeful match-lighting as purposeful fire-starting and failed to make or support the required recklessness findings, and it remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of lesser culpability and double-jeopardy constraints on the remaining count.


State v. M.N., 267 N.J. Super. 482 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1993)