Arson in the 1st Degree requires the building to be inhabited or believed inhabited. Which statement best describes this degree?

• A. Intentionally tries to destroy or damage a building by starting a fire or causing an explosion and the building is inhabited or occupied or the person has reason to believe the building may be inhabited or occupied.
• B. Recklessly starting a fire in an inhabited building.
• C. Intentionally starting a fire in an uninhabited building.
• D. Intentionally starting a fire by a building that is not inhabited.

Answer: (A)

The key idea here is the occupancy element in first-degree arson: to convict, the act must be intentional and aimed at destroying or damaging a building that is inhabited or believed to be inhabited. The best description matches that exact combination—intentional destruction or damage by fire or explosion, with the building either inhabited or occupied, or the defendant having reason to believe it may be inhabited or occupied. This captures both the deliberate intent and the occupancy factor that elevate the offense.

Understanding the distinction helps: starting a fire recklessly would not meet first-degree arson, because it lacks the purposeful intent to destroy. Likewise, arson on an uninhabited building (without any belief or reason to believe it might be inhabited) would not meet the occupancy requirement for first-degree arson. The phrase “reason to believe” covers situations where the defendant reasonably suspects people are inside, which still satisfies the higher-degree element.

So the statement that combines intentional destruction with occupancy or a reasonable belief of occupancy best describes first-degree arson.