Justia Lawyer Rating
Avvo Client's Choice Award 2019 - Allan F. Friedman
Avvo Client's Choice Award 2017 - Allan F. Friedman
Top Contributor Award 2017 - Allan F. Friedman
Avvo Rating badge 10.0 - Allan F. Friedman
Elite Lawyer badge - Allan Friedman
10 Best attorney badge
BBB badge
CTLA badge
STAMFORD Chamber of Commerce badge
Connecticut Bar Association badge

C.G.S. § 53a-111 — Arson in the First Degree

Definition

A person commits Arson in the First Degree when, with intent to destroy or damage a building, they start a fire or cause an explosion, and any one of the following is true:

  • The building is inhabited or occupied, or the person has reason to believe someone may be inside;
  • Another person is injured as a result;
  • The fire or explosion is set to collect insurance proceeds; or
  • A peace officer or firefighter, in the performance of official duties at the scene, is subjected to a substantial risk of bodily injury.

“Building” is defined broadly and can include structures or vehicles used for lodging or business.

Elements the State Must Prove
  1. Intent to destroy or damage a building;
  2. An act of starting a fire or causing an explosion;
  3. At least one qualifying circumstance (occupied/inhabited, injury, insurance motive, or substantial risk to first responders).
Penalties
  • Class A felony
  • Imprisonment: 10 to 25 years
  • Fine: up to $20,000
  • Probation: possible at the court’s discretion, with strict conditions (e.g., no-contact, restitution)
Common Scenarios
  • Overnight blaze in a multi-family house with tenants home.
  • After-hours fire in a shop where recent insurance changes suggest a financial motive.
  • Warehouse fire that forces firefighters into flashover/collapse conditions.
  • Fire spreading from a targeted area that causes smoke inhalation injuries to neighbors or responders.
Examples
  • Insurance-motivated storefront fire: A shop owner falls behind on rent, boosts coverage weeks before a late-night fire starts in a back room where accelerant patterns are later documented. No one is inside, but the insurance-proceeds motive is enough to satisfy the statute when coupled with intent and origin evidence.
  • Hallway fire in an occupied triple-decker: After a dispute, someone ignites clothing in a first-floor corridor of a three-family house. Even if damage is contained, the building is inhabited and the act was intentional, meeting the statute’s occupied-building prong.
  • Risk to firefighters at a storage facility: A deliberately set blaze in a storage complex produces heavy smoke and structural instability. Responding firefighters performing their duties face a substantial risk of injury while searching the structure, satisfying the first-responder risk prong.
  • Electrical fault, no intent to damage: A café burns after closing. Independent origin-and-cause work shows the fire began at a faulty junction box in the ceiling. With no human-set ignition and no intent to damage a building, the elements of § 53a-111 are not met; the appropriate outcome is dismissal or reduction to a non-intent offense.
Related OffensesDefense & Resolution Strategies

Element challenges

  • Intent to damage a building: Emphasize accident, electrical/appliance failure, spontaneous combustion, or other non-intent causes.
  • Origin & cause science: Use independent fire experts to test accelerant claims, burn pattern interpretations, timing, and point-of-origin methodology.
  • Building/occupancy proof: Scrutinize whether the location meets the statutory “building” definition and whether occupation/presence was proven or reasonably believed.
  • Injury and responder-risk proof: Verify causation, extent of injuries, and whether the responder risk was substantial based on reports and tactical timelines.
  • Insurance-motive rebuttal: Counter with financials, policy timing, and alternative reasons for coverage changes.

Procedural tools

  • Suppression of unlawful searches or statements; challenge scene re-entries and warrant scope.
  • Discovery demands for full origin-and-cause files, lab results, and responder videos.

Charge-level pathways

  • When intent or qualifying factors are weak, pursue reductions to § 53a-112, § 53a-113, or § 53a-114, or negotiate resolutions that address restitution and safety concerns without a Class A conviction.

Diversionary programs

FAQs
Do prosecutors need to prove all four qualifying circumstances?
No. Any one of the four, along with intent and a fire/explosion, is sufficient.

If no one is hurt and the building is empty, can it still be Arson 1st?
Yes, if the fire was set to collect insurance or if a responding firefighter/peace officer faced a substantial risk during the response.

What if the blaze was accidental?
Accidents and electrical faults do not satisfy the intent requirement for § 53a-111. Proper origin-and-cause analysis is key.

Is there a mandatory minimum sentence?
There is no statutory mandatory minimum for § 53a-111, but it is a Class A felony with a 10–25 year range, and courts treat it very seriously.

Call to Action

A § 53a-111 charge is high-stakes. We move immediately to secure scene photos, videos, reports, and independent fire-science review, then pressure-test the statute’s intent and qualifying prongs.

Call (203) 357-5555 or use our online contact form for a confidential consultation. We defend arson cases statewide and fight to protect your record, your rights, and your future.

Client Reviews
★★★★★
Attorney Friedman is the best!! He was extremely helpful and put me at ease with staying on top of my case leaving me with little to worry about. He is hardworking and was extremely flexible with my work schedule in setting up appointments and phone calls. His worth ethic, compassion, and fair price point really set him apart! Raul M.
★★★★★
Not only does Allan give exceptional legal advice, but he also takes the time to get to know his clients on an individual level. He is always available to answer questions, and he is truly dedicated to achieving a fair outcome in each case he is presented with. Knowledgeable, professional & compassionate. Highly recommend! Jennifer S.
★★★★★
Allan has been my personal attorney for over 10 years. He is creative, had working, dedicated, tenacious, and incredibly reliable. I highly recommend him, please don’t hesitate to contact him for service. George K.
★★★★★
I would highly recommend Attorney Allan F. Friedman to anyone seeking counsel in Connecticut. He represented our family's interests in a very professional, fair and effective way. I would give him my highest endorsement. Greg S.
★★★★★
Absolutely Exceptional Attorney. I give Allan a 10 out of 5 - he is that good and far beyond excellent!!! Allan handled my traffic matter with the highest level of professionalism, empathy and efficiency that anyone could ever ask for… Jose
★★★★★
This man literally saved my life! I had a criminal mischief and domestic charge along with a protective order put on me. Atty Friedman successfully got me into the required needed to have these charges dropped. Then came the felony protective order violation...Long story short I walked out of court today with all my charges nolled. Anonymous