In re V.V

In re V.V. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1020 concerned the sufficiency of evidence of malice where the juvenile court found a brushfire caused by minors throwing lighted firecrackers onto a hillside was unintentional. (V.V., at p. 1025.) After confirming its holding in Atkins that the statutory definition of "maliciously" for arson requires no specific intent to commit a further act or achieve a future consequence, the Court explained there are two types of malice derived from the common law: "Malice in fact--defined as "a wish to vex, annoy, or injure" ( 7, item 4)--consists of actual ill will or intent to injure." (Id. at pp. 1027-1028.) The second type of malice is "malice in law--as defined by section 7, item 4 as 'an intent to do a wrongful act, established either by proof or presumption of law.'" (Id. at p. 1028.) In determining whether malice, as used in the legal sense, is established for arson, "malice will be presumed or implied from the deliberate and intentional ignition or act of setting a fire without legal justification, excuse or claim of right. (Id. at p. 1028.) The V.V. Court concluded the record showed the minors had willfully and maliciously set the hillside fire. By igniting firecrackers and throwing them onto the dry brush, which exploded in flames, the minors willfully and intentionally committed the wrongful act, causing the forest land to be burned. (V.V., supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 1028.) With respect to whether the minors acted maliciously, the Court agreed with the juvenile court the "acts of intentionally igniting and throwing a firecracker amid dry brush on a hillside, although done without intent to cause a fire or other harm, were sufficient to establish the requisite malice for arson." (Ibid.)