Fred Sisto | Criminal Attorney | Ocean and Monmouth County

Call Us Today
732-898-3232

  • Home
  • Criminal Defense Services
    ▼
    • Drug Crimes
      ▼
      • Drug Manufacturing
      • Intent to Distribute Narcotics
      • Prescription Drug Crimes
      • Leader of Narcotics Trafficking Network
    • Weapons Charges
      ▼
      • Prohibited Weapons and Devices
      • Manufacture, Transport, etc. of Weapons
      • Illegal Possession of a Gun
      • Possession of Weapons for Unlawful Purposes
    • Expungements
    • Theft Attorney
    • Violent Crimes
      ▼
      • Robbery/Burglary
      • Manslaughter
      • Extortion
      • Assault
      • Sexual Offenses
    • Arson
    • DUI / DWI
      ▼
      • Alcohol DUI
      • Drug DUI
      • Refusing a Breath Test
    • Driving with A Suspended License
    • Property Forfeiture
    • Anti-Drug Profiteering
    • Juvenile Delinquency
  • Español / Spanish Speaking Attorney
  • About
    ▼
    • Testimonials
    • Defending Cases In
      ▼
      • Monmouth County
      • Ocean County
  • Blog
  • Contact
    ▼
    • Receive a Call From Fred
  • DUI Checkpoint Alerts
  • Results
  • Payment Options
  • Home
  • Criminal Defense Services
    • Drug Crimes
      • Drug Manufacturing
      • Intent to Distribute Narcotics
      • Prescription Drug Crimes
      • Leader of Narcotics Trafficking Network
    • Weapons Charges
      • Prohibited Weapons and Devices
      • Manufacture, Transport, etc. of Weapons
      • Illegal Possession of a Gun
      • Possession of Weapons for Unlawful Purposes
    • Expungements
    • Theft Attorney
    • Violent Crimes
      • Robbery/Burglary
      • Manslaughter
      • Extortion
      • Assault
      • Sexual Offenses
    • Arson
    • DUI / DWI
      • Alcohol DUI
      • Drug DUI
      • Refusing a Breath Test
    • Driving with A Suspended License
    • Property Forfeiture
    • Anti-Drug Profiteering
    • Juvenile Delinquency
  • Español / Spanish Speaking Attorney
  • About
    • Testimonials
    • Defending Cases In
      • Monmouth County
      • Ocean County
  • Blog
  • Contact
    • Receive a Call From Fred
  • DUI Checkpoint Alerts
  • Results
  • Payment Options
Home >> Rule Against Multiplicity (Part 3)

October 20, 2018 by Fred Sisto

Rule Against Multiplicity (Part 3)

The Appellate Division continued: In other words, instead of classifying arson as a form of assault, the Legislature classified it as a property crime, based on setting a fire. But, the Legislature chose to grade fire-setting more seriously if it endangered human life. See Senate Judiciary Committee Statement to Senate, No. 738 (May 15, 1978). The Legislature also intended to fractionalize arson, in the sense that a defendant can be charged and punished for setting the fire, in addition to being charged and punished for assault and murder based on the injury or death caused by the fire. See Miller, (addressing fractionalizing of offenses); State v. Mirault, (1983). Thus, an arson conviction does not merge with accompanying assault or homicide convictions. Nonetheless, that does not mean that a defendant can be charged with multiple counts of arson for setting one fire.

The State relies on the following language from Craig: “the view that there are as many crimes committed as there are victims finds overwhelming support in other jurisdictions.” However, that language refers to multiple counts of assault or homicide, not multiple counts of arson. Two of the cases that Craig cited in support of the quoted language involved arson. In both cases, a defendant was charged with one count of arson, and multiple counts of attempted murder or aggravated assault. See Neal v. State, 357 P.2d 839, 841 (Cal. 1960); State v. Rieck, 286 N.W.2d 724, 725 (Minn. 1979). We cannot accept the State’s argument.

Although it is not binding on us, we find support for our conclusion in Handy v. State, 803 A.2d 937 (Del. 2002), decided by the Supreme Court of Delaware. In Handy, the State charged the defendant with multiple counts of attempted murder and multiple counts of arson, for setting one fire that endangered several victims. In construing Delaware’s arson statute, the court traced the history of the statute back to the common law and concluded that historically, arson statutes contemplated that arson should be “one single, serious charge based on the fact that fire is inherently, and unpredictably, destructive.” The court held that “a charge of multiple counts of first degree arson for multiple intended victims based on a single fire constitutes an unconstitutional multiplicity prohibited by the Double Jeopardy Clause.”  The court reasoned that “the basis of the crime of arson is directed to the property,” while the presence of endangered inhabitants was “one element in fixing the degree of arson.”

This case is an example of an issue of first impression that the State likely waited to present until the New Jersey Supreme Court’s balance of power shifted towards law enforcement. The shift occurred with former Governor Christie’s appointment of numerous judges, including four of the seven state supreme court justices.

Filed Under: Blog, Criminal Law, Monmouth County, New Jersey, Ocean County

Testimonials

Great!!! , got my case handled in the exact manner that I was told and would recommend to everyone else in need of legal representation.

Raumelis R   

Thanks to Fred I have no criminal record whatsoever.

Luke A   

I would highly recommend Mr. Sisto. He is very insightful and proficient, yet still down to Earth. Fred is great at communicating and breaking down the facts. But most importantly, he excels at getting results.

Bill K   

Fred is a stickler for detail and communicates with clients very, very well. He is smart and astute. I would recommend him unconditionally.

Tom O   
See More Testimonials

Recent Posts

  • Law Enforcement and Administrative Functions (Part 4)
  • Law Enforcement and Administrative Functions (Part 3)
  • Law Enforcement and Administrative Functions (Part 2)
  • Law Enforcement and Administrative Functions (Part 1)
  • The Juvenile Waive Statute and Retroactivity (Part 3)
  • The Juvenile Waive Statute and Retroactivity (Part 2)
  • The Juvenile Waive Statute and Retroactivity (Part 1)
  • Plain View and Lawful Vantage Points (Part 3)

Recent Speaking Engagement

Site Disclaimer

Attorney Referral Fees

Frederick P Sisto has earned Lawyer Legion's recognition for Community Leadership

Law Office of Frederick P. Sisto

Point Pleasant Office*:
302 Hawthorne Ave, Suite 1
Point Pleasant Beach, NJ 08742

Phone: 732-898-3232
Fax: 201-508-3393
*Office visits by appointment only.

Representing clients throughout all court jurisdictions of New Jersey.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CRIMINAL TRIAL ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION, NO ASPECT OF THIS ADVERTISEMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY