PEOPLE OF MI V KURT EDWARD JOHN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 12, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 233194
Montcalm Circuit Court
LC Nos. 00-000100-FH;
00-000194-FH
KURT EDWARD JOHN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Sawyer and R. J. Danhof*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his convictions, following a jury trial, of arson of real
property (other than a dwelling house), MCL 750.73, and burning insured property, MCL
750.75. Defendant was sentenced to ninety days in jail and five years’ probation, along with
being ordered to pay restitution and other costs. We affirm.
This case arises out of a fire at defendant’s business located in the front section of a pole
barn. Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence for the case to
go to the jury. We disagree. “The test for determining the sufficiency of evidence in a criminal
case is whether the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecutor, would warrant a
reasonable juror in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Nowack, 462 Mich 392,
399; 614 NW2d 78 (2000).
With regard to arson of real property, the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt (1) that the defendant burned a building or any of its contents, (2) that the building was not
a dwelling house, (3) that the defendant burned the building, or its contents, with the intent to set
a fire, knowing that it would cause injury or damage to another person or to property, and (4) that
the defendant did it without just cause or excuse. MCL 750.73; CJI2d 31.3. The elements of
the crime of burning insured property are (1) the burning of any building or personal property,
(2) that was insured against loss or damage caused by fire, (3) with the defendant having
knowledge that the property was insured, (4) where the defendant intended to set the fire without
just cause or excuse, knowing that this would cause damage to property, and (5) where the
*
Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
defendant acted with an intent to defraud or cheat the insurer. MCL 750.75; People v Ayers, 213
Mich App 708, 721; 540 NW2d 791 (1995); CJI2d 31.5.
Both circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence can
provide sufficient evidence to prove the elements of an offense. People v Whitehead, 238 Mich
App 1, 14; 604 NW2d 737 (1999). In arson cases in particular, circumstantial evidence is often
relied upon because there rarely is evidence that the arsonist was observed lighting the fire.
Nowack, supra at 402-403.
Defendant’s argument focuses on whether there was sufficient evidence that someone set
the fire intentionally and whether defendant was the person who set the fire. We find that there
was sufficient evidence to submit the case to the jury.
Neighbors, firefighters, and police officers that were on the scene initially observed the
fire coming from the front section of the building housing defendant’s business. More than one
of the officers on the scene smelled a strong petroleum odor after digging through the debris at
the location of defendant’s business. Additionally, the prosecutor presented expert testimony
indicating the presence of a flammable liquid. There was testimony opining, based on burn
marks and patterns, that the fire started in defendant’s business and was intense. There was also
expert opinion testimony ruling out natural and accidental causes of the fire. The jury could
infer that an accelerant was used to start the fire, thereby supporting a finding that the fire was
intentionally set.
There was also sufficient evidence suggesting that defendant started the fire. The
prosecutor offered evidence that defendant had a motive for committing this crime because of his
desperate financial position at the time of the fire. Further, defendant admitted in a statement
that he left his business approximately minutes before the fire department was alerted to the fire.
This could lead a reasonable person to question whether defendant was being truthful when he
said that he did not see or smell smoke especially when the fire was quite large when the officers
and firefighters arrived on the scene. Moreover, all but one expert concluded that because
defendant was the last person in the building before the fire, he had the only opportunity to start
the fire.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecutor, there was sufficient
evidence to warrant a reasonable juror finding defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on
both charges.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Robert J. Danhof
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
