Section 5A. Whoever wilfully and maliciously attempts to set fire to, or attempts to burn, or aids, counsels or assists in such an attempt to set fire to or burn, any of the buildings, structures or property mentioned in the foregoing sections, or whoever commits any act preliminary thereto or in furtherance thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than ten years, or by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one half years or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars.
The placing or distributing of any flammable, explosive or combustible material or substance or any device in or against any building, structure or property mentioned in the foregoing sections in an arrangement or preparation with intent eventually to wilfully and maliciously set fire to or burn such building, structure or property, or to procure the setting fire to or burning of the same shall, for the purposes of this section, constitute an attempt to burn such building, structure or property.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1961–2023 · leading case:
Commonwealth v. Coutu, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 686 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015).
Commonwealth v. Coutu, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 686 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015).
· cites it 3× “e, the denial of the motion was proper and not an abuse of discretion.”
Commonwealth v. Van Bell, 917 N.E.2d 740 (Mass. 2009).
“The Legislature relaxed the strictures of the Peaslee case with respect to attempts to burn certain buildings, structures, or property when it enacted G. L. c. 266, § 5A, inserted by St. 1932, c.”
Commonwealth v. Anolik, 542 N.E.2d 327 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989).
· cites it 2× “The Commonwealth contends, however, that because the indictment charging Jeffrey with attempted arson was drawn pursuant to G. L. c. 266, § 5A, the above rule does not apply.”
Commonwealth v. Lamothe, 179 N.E.2d 245 (Mass. 1961).
“The offence charged in the indictment is defined in G. L. c. 266, § 5A (inserted by St. 1932, c.”
Commonwealth v. Fortier, 775 N.E.2d 785 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002).
“See G. L. c. 266, § 5A; Commonwealth v. Peaslee, 177 Mass.”
Commonwealth v. Coutu, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 227 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016).
“Rather, his attempted arson conviction arose from his violation of G. L. c. 266, § 5A. Under § 5A, an attempt is separately defined as: ‘“The placing or distributing of any flammable, explosive or combustible material or substance or any device in or against any building,…”
Commonwealth v. DeCillis, 669 N.E.2d 1087 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996).
“93-0254-7); attempted arson (G. L. c. 266, § 5A) (no. 93-0254-8); and breaking and entering a building in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony (G.”
Commonwealth v. Hunter, 464 N.E.2d 413 (Mass. App. Ct. 1984).
“266, § 10) and attempted arson (G. L. c. 266, § 5A). The defendant was sentenced to two and one-half years in a house of correction on the first charge and the simple attempted arson indictment was dismissed on the ground that the verdicts were duplicitous.”
Commonwealth v. Peterson, 840 N.E.2d 913 (Mass. 2006).
“G. L. c. 266, § 5A. On appeal, he claims that (1) his trial was invalid because the Commonwealth proceeded against him by way of complaint despite the fact that he never executed a written waiver of his right to indictment, and (2) the trial judge erred in denying a motion to…”
Commonwealth v. Ali, 386 N.E.2d 750 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979).
· cites it 2× “G. L. c. 266, § 5A. He assigns as error the refusal of the judge to allow his motion for a directed verdict of not guilty.”
Commonwealth v. Banner, 13 Mass. App. Ct. 1065 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982).
· cites it 5× “G. L. c. 266, § 5A. The judge *1066 sentenced him to eighteen months in a house of correction on and after any sentence then being served.”
Commonwealth v. Doughty, 491 Mass. 788 (2023).
· cites it 6× “278, § 33E, to reduce the degree of guilt or 1 He was also convicted of one count of attempted burning of a dwelling, in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 5A; one count of armed carjacking, in violation of G.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.