## Facts

- Dennis Rollins lived in an apartment where his girlfriend, Norma Fish, stayed; Fish was also involved with Matthew Lee Rogers.
- After Rollins confronted Rogers about the relationship, Rogers threatened Rollins and claimed Fish was “mine.”
- A fire occurred inside Rollins’s apartment while Rollins was away; other residents were present in the apartment building.
- Rollins found a significant burn on the wall-to-wall carpet, extending through the carpet to the subfloor; he extinguished it, and the fire did not spread beyond the initial area.
- The next day, management arranged an investigation, and security video showed Rogers removing a note from Rollins’s door, lighting it, and sliding it under the door, igniting the interior carpet.
- Rogers admitted lighting the note and pushing it under the door, claiming he intended to get Rollins to come to the door; he acknowledged knowing many people lived in the complex.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove aggravated arson, including whether burning wall-to-wall carpeting constituted damage to a “structure” under the statute.
2. Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury by declining to define “structure” and by allegedly confusing the elements of aggravated arson and the lesser offense of reckless burning.
3. Whether juror misconduct occurred when jurors consulted an electronic dictionary for “structure,” and, if so, whether it required a new trial.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the aggravated arson conviction.
- The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find that wall-to-wall carpeting integrated into the apartment floor was part of the “structure,” and the building was occupied at the time.
- The jury instructions, considered as a whole, adequately stated the law; the court was not required to define a common word like “structure.”
- Consulting an electronic dictionary was misconduct, but it was harmless because the definition reflected an ordinary meaning and did not create a reasonable possibility of affecting the verdict given the proof.

## Legal Principles

- For aggravated arson, the State must prove knowing damage by fire to a “structure” without the owner’s consent under circumstances where the structure is occupied.
- When a statutory term is undefined and commonly understood, a trial court may leave the term to jurors’ ordinary understanding if the charge as a whole fairly states the law and does not mislead.
- Jurors’ consultation of extraneous reference materials is improper; relief depends on whether the extraneous information was prejudicial or created a reasonable possibility of affecting the verdict.
- Fixtures or integrated building components may be treated as part of a “structure” for arson purposes, rather than as mere personal property, when the proof shows the fire damaged the building’s physical framework.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld the aggravated arson conviction, concluding that damage to wall-to-wall carpeting and the subfloor supported the “structure” element, the jury instructions were legally sufficient despite no definition of “structure,” and the jurors’ unauthorized dictionary consultation did not warrant a new trial because it was non-prejudicial.


State v. Rogers, No. W2005-02827-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 2716870 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 22, 2006)