Criminal – Defendant attempts to burn house using fireworks

Where the defendant and another man taped together three “mortar shell” fireworks, attached them to a window and lit an incense stick connected to the fireworks’ fuses, the defendant was convicted of attempted arson.

Background

The trial court convicted Craig Anthony Fordham of attempted arson after he and another perpetrator taped fireworks together, lit their combined and altered fuse and taped the burning bundle to the wooden windowsill of a house.

Intent

To sustain a conviction of attempted arson, the evidence had to prove that Fordham specifically intended to “burn[], or by use of any explosive device or substance destroy[], in whole or in part, or cause[] to be burned or destroyed . . . any dwelling house.” Use of the disjunctive “or” in the statute demonstrates that there are several alternative ways to commit the offense.

Here, the record evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion that Fordham specifically intended to both burn and destroy Kelley’s home, in part. Fordham and Gowda taped together three “mortar shell” fireworks, attached them to a window at Kelley’s home and lit an incense stick connected to the fireworks’ fuses.

Had the fuses ignited as they intended, the direct and natural consequence of their actions would have been the production of flame against the partially wooden house structure and the destruction of the window by an incendiary explosion. Such an explosion would not merely have “damaged” the window, as Fordham alleges.

Rather, it would have rendered at least the window, which was a part of the dwelling house, and all spaces connected to the window, “useless for its intended purpose” and, therefore, destroyed that part of the house. Further, the natural and probable consequence of igniting an incendiary device against wood is that the wood will ignite.

Contrary to Fordham’s argument, Gowda’s testimony that they intended to damage the window supports the conclusion that they meant to burn and destroy, in part, Kelley’s house. He contends that an intent to merely damage, which he claims is reflected in Gowda’s testimony, falls outside the scope of the arson statute.

But Fordham overlooks Gowda’s admission regarding their method of breaking the window: taping “mortar shell” fireworks to the wooden portion of a house and igniting an incense stick connected to their fuses. From this evidence, along with Gowda’s statement that they intended to break the window, the court could reasonably infer that Fordham intended to cause a combustive blast and burn and destroy a part of Kelley’s house.

Explosive device

Fordham also contends that the court erred in finding that the bundle placed on Kelley’s window was “an explosive device.” As noted above, however, a person commits arson if he either (1) “burns . . . in whole or in part . . . any dwelling house,” or (2) “by use of any explosive device or substance destroys, in whole or in part . . . any dwelling house.” Because, as demonstrated above, the evidence demonstrates that Fordham specifically intended to burn part of Kelley’s dwelling house, and that finding is independently sufficient to support the conviction, the court need not address his argument that the bundle was an “explosive device” under the arson statute.

Affirmed.

Fordham v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1058-25-2, July 14, 2026. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Clements). From the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County (Pemberton). Gregory R. Sheldon (BainSheldon, PLC, on brief), for appellant. Robert D. Bauer, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. VLW 026-7-298. 8 pp.

Full-Text Opinion