50 A.2d 152 (1946)
Defendant was convicted of counseling another person to set fire to a dwelling house. The other person did not ever burn the house.
- The court held that the solicitation itself was an act done toward the execution of the evil intent and was therefore indictable because an act done with a criminal intent was punishable by indictment.
- The court held that the solicitation constituted a substantive crime in itself, and not an abortive attempt to perpetrate the crime solicited.
- The court held that the state's evidence regarding defendant's intent to defraud the insurance company was irrelevant, so long as the solicitation itself was established.
- The court found that defendant waived several of its grounds for reversal by failing to assign error in the appropriate manner.
- Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction.
The court affirmed defendant's conviction for counseling another person to set fire to a dwelling house because it was irrelevant that the person defendant counseled never actually set the house on fire.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law