Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-9 (2026)

Arson; fourth degree; attempt to burn

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Codes, 1942, § 2009; Laws, 1932, ch. 272.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1986–2010 · leading case: Thomas v. State, 48 So. 3d 460 (Miss. 2010).
Thomas v. State, 48 So. 3d 460 (Miss. 2010). · cites it 4× “Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-9(1) (Rev.2006). ¶ 16.”
Brooks v. State, 18 So. 3d 859 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “" Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-9(1) (Rev.2006). On appeal, Jackson argued that the indictment was substantially defective for failing to allege an overt act toward the commission of the crime charged.”
Weaver v. State, 497 So. 2d 1089 (Miss. 1986). “Weaver argues that the testimony did not indicate that he was in Maben on Sunday night and, at best, if he attempted to burn the Hi-Lo Dollar Store on Saturday night, he would be guilty of fourth degree arson under Miss.”
Tonnie L. Thomas v. State of Mississippi (Miss. 2009). · cites it 4× “Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-9 (1) (Rev. 2006).”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-9(1) — 3 cases
Thomas v. State, 48 So. 3d 460 (Miss. 2010). “Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-9(1) (Rev.2006). ¶ 16.”
Brooks v. State, 18 So. 3d 859 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008). “" Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-9(1) (Rev.2006). On appeal, Jackson argued that the indictment was substantially defective for failing to allege an overt act toward the commission of the crime charged.”
Tonnie L. Thomas v. State of Mississippi (Miss. 2009). “Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-9 (1) (Rev. 2006).”
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.