State of Minnesota v. Steven Hamilton Whitney
A16-425
| Minn. Ct. App. | Jan 30, 2017Background
- On May 5, 2015, Steven Whitney purchased gasoline, drove to his former residence, and started a fire that burned a garage and spread along a fence before firefighters extinguished it.
- Responding Officer Michael Kulzer observed a partially melted gas can, smelled gasoline, and witnesses identified Whitney; surveillance showed Whitney buying gasoline.
- Whitney was charged with first-degree arson (use of a flammable liquid) and second-degree arson; the jury convicted on both counts.
- The jury was instructed that a "flammable liquid" means a liquid with flash point below 100°F and vapor pressure not exceeding 40 psi absolute at 100°F (Minn. Stat. § 609.561, subd. 3(b)(3)).
- At trial, Officer Kulzer testified gasoline is a class 1-B flammable liquid and has a flash point under 100°F (he referenced ~73°F) but did not state gasoline’s vapor pressure.
- Whitney appealed, arguing the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that gasoline met the statute’s vapor-pressure requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence proved the flammable-liquid element (vapor pressure ≤ 40 psi at 100°F) for first-degree arson | State: Officer’s testimony that gasoline is a class 1-B flammable liquid and meets the statutory definition (flash point under 100°F) sufficed | Whitney: State failed to prove the vapor-pressure element because no witness testified to gasoline’s vapor pressure | The court affirmed: Officer’s affirmative testimony that gasoline met the statutory definition (asked if it met the definition) was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the element beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb v. State, 440 N.W.2d 426 (Minn. 1989) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Moore v. State, 438 N.W.2d 101 (Minn. 1989) (appellate court assumes jury believed state witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence)
- Bernhardt v. State, 684 N.W.2d 465 (Minn. 2004) (guilty verdict will stand if a reasonable jury could conclude guilt under the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (prosecution must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt)