Published: Thursday, July 29, 2010
Judge rules boy accused of fatal Arlington fire knew right from wrong
EVERETT -- A judge on Wednesday found that a 10-year-old boy was capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong at the time he is accused of starting an Arlington house fire that killed two other boys.
The boy, now 12, is charged with conspiracy to commit second-degree manslaughter for the 2008 fire. Tyler Emory, 10, and Kyler Williams, 11, were unable to escape the two-alarm blaze and died inside.
Children younger than 12 are presumed to be incapable of committing a crime. That presumption can be overcome, however, if the child is at least 8, and there is sufficient evidence to prove that the child understood the nature of the act and knew that it was wrong, Snohomish County deputy prosecutor John Stansell wrote in court papers.
The boy first lied about how the fire started. He eventually admitted that he was playing with a lighter and accidentally lit some bed linens on fire, according to court documents. He told detectives that he lied because he didn't want to get in trouble, Stansell wrote.
The boy's attorney declined to present a counter-argument. Instead she agreed that the legal criteria had been met for the judge to find the boy capable of knowing right from wrong.
The boy, now 12, is charged with conspiracy to commit second-degree manslaughter for the 2008 fire. Tyler Emory, 10, and Kyler Williams, 11, were unable to escape the two-alarm blaze and died inside.
Children younger than 12 are presumed to be incapable of committing a crime. That presumption can be overcome, however, if the child is at least 8, and there is sufficient evidence to prove that the child understood the nature of the act and knew that it was wrong, Snohomish County deputy prosecutor John Stansell wrote in court papers.
The boy first lied about how the fire started. He eventually admitted that he was playing with a lighter and accidentally lit some bed linens on fire, according to court documents. He told detectives that he lied because he didn't want to get in trouble, Stansell wrote.
The boy's attorney declined to present a counter-argument. Instead she agreed that the legal criteria had been met for the judge to find the boy capable of knowing right from wrong.
Comments





