State v. Inthavong3/19/2003
FACTS
The nineteen-year-old defendant, Phetsamay Inthavong, was indicted on September 12, 2000, for arson, a Class C felony, for the August 19, 2000, burning of the home of her ex-boyfriend's mother and stepfather, Marilyn and Paul Kees. In her application for pretrial diversion, the defendant did not include a recitation of the facts of the alleged offense. The facts we glean from the record reveal that the defendant, knowing that the Kees were not at home, entered their house, set fire to a piece of paper, and threw it onto a bed, resulting in a total loss of the house and its contents. Apparently, the defendant and Mrs. Kees's son had recently ended their relationship, and the defendant set fire to the Kees's home as an act of revenge.
The defendant submitted an application for pretrial diversion which bears the date of February 16, 2001. The application was denied by the district attorney general on March 30, 2001. The defendant then filed a petition for writ of certiorari on May 14, 2001, in conformity with Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-15-105(b)(3), for review of the denial of her application. A hearing was held on the petition on July 12, 2001, at which two of the victims, Mr. and Mrs. Kees, were permitted to testify.
Mr. Kees testified that not only did the defendant set fire to their house, she also stole a laptop computer which belonged to his stepson's cousin who was a guest in their home at the time of the fire. He said that the defendant had broken into their house about a month before the fire but had returned everything she had taken. According to him, the fire was "actually the third time [the defendant] ha vented her anger out toward [them] because of boyfriend girlfriend stuff." He said his house had been appraised for $101,000, and he had insurance coverage on the house for $96,000 and on the contents for $56,000. After the fire, he sold the lot on which his house was located because he could not afford to rebuild.
Mrs. Kees testified that the defendant had been dating her son for approximately two years and had been "like a part of the family." Regarding the fire, Mrs. Kees said that, from the defendant's confession, it was obvious that the defendant "intended to do something" and that the defendant said she "waited until the fire got going real good" before leaving the house. Describing the defendant as "malicious and vindictive," Mrs. Kees said that although the defendant knew the family had a kitten in the house, she did not let the kitten outside before setting the house ablaze, causing the kitten to perish in the fire.
Following the hearing, the trial court determined that the district attorney general had not abused his discretion in denying the defendant's application:
In what I've heard here this morning we have at least four people that had crimes committed against them. The visitor that was there lost what they had. There was a burglary involved, although it's not charged. It could be charged, still could be charged if they went to the grand jury and charged her with the burglary. That is a burglary, go in somebody's home and take something is a burglary. And then you have at least four people involved that were there or had things in that house burned up, completely destroyed the house evidently. When I first read it I thought it was a partial fire, but it wasn't. It's a lot of damage, a lot of damage. And of course the [defendant], I guess she's going to need a psychologist, she needs something. But all the times she's done it, she's taken things before, burglarized the house before according to these people. And the D.A., of course, they have to look at the whole background of this thing b
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|