It reasoned that:

Cell phone data that demonstrated that Barnes was in the vicinity of the arson during the time of its commission;
Video surveillance captured an image of a white Chevy work truck with a ladder rack and a burned-out brake light immediately before the fire;
Barnes owned a white Chevy work truck with a ladder rack and a burned-out brake light;
Certain items of Barnes' clothing from the day of the arson tested positive for gasoline or ignitable liquids;
Barnes had a partially used can of linseed oil, an ignitable liquid, in his truck when he was taken into custody; and
Even if no one was in the home at the time of the fire, prosecutors had presented testimony that someone was likely to be present or in such proximity as to be in danger.

The appellate court also found sufficient evidence to affirm Barnes' conviction on the other counts. It explained that:

An employee from Barnes' insurance company testified that Barnes called the insurance company at 10:30 a.m. the day of the arson to make a claim under his insurance policy, claiming he had no knowledge of the cause of the fire;
Barnes also stated that he wanted to ensure that only his name was on any check issued for the claim made on the policy although Barnes' ex-wife was also insured under the policy; and
Barnes had previously attempted to remove his ex-wife as an insured under the insurance policy, but he was not able to do so because she was a co-owner of the property.

After rejecting Barnes' contention that the statute under which he was convicted of arson of an occupied structure was vague, overbroad, and violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the circuit court affirmed Barnes' conviction.

Special Reports /

Anatomy of an arson conviction

Related Stories

Recommended For You