Hamilton v. State

676 S.W.2d 120, 1984 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 747
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedSeptember 19, 1984
Docket1002-83
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 676 S.W.2d 120 (Hamilton v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hamilton v. State, 676 S.W.2d 120, 1984 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 747 (Tex. 1984).

Opinions

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

W.C. DAVIS, Judge.

The court of appeals reversed this conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon,1 holding that arson is not a crime of violence per se, and that the State had therefore failed to prove that appellant had previously been convicted of a crime of violence.

One who starts a fire or causes an explosion with intent to destroy or damage a building, habitation or vehicle2 necessarily exerts a physical force — the fire. (Although the oxidation reaction is, strictly speaking, chemical in nature, the fire surely possesses the “capacity to ... cause physical change,” see American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, “force”, definition No. 1, p. 513 (1982). That force is exerted “so as to ... damage” by definition of the required accompanying intent, and this is true regardless of whether or not the object of the offense is attained by actual destruction of, or damage to, the target of the arson.

The position of the court of appeals in this cause is analogous to holding that, because a gunshot fired with the intent to maim a complainant misses its target, the shooter of the gun, although guilty of aggravated assault (and not merely of an inchoate offense), has not committed a crime of violence.

Violence inheres, not in the result, but in the intent and the act. Because violence is inherent in the setting of a fire with intent to destroy or damage, and because the crime of arson requires that action and more, we hold that arson is a crime of violence per se.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed. Appellant having raised in that court no other grounds of error, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. McKinney
917 P.2d 1214 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1996)
Boyd v. State
899 S.W.2d 371 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)
Mosher v. State
901 S.W.2d 547 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)
Burks v. State
876 S.W.2d 877 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1994)
Lackey v. State
819 S.W.2d 111 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Vasquez v. State
796 S.W.2d 555 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Ortega v. State
792 S.W.2d 145 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Brimberry v. State
774 S.W.2d 773 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1989)
Ware v. State
749 S.W.2d 852 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1988)
Drew v. State
743 S.W.2d 207 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Hamilton v. State
676 S.W.2d 120 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
676 S.W.2d 120, 1984 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-state-texcrimapp-1984.