Scott v. State
Texas Court of Appeals
No. 2-06-335-CR, 2007 WL 2460254 (2007)

- Written by Kelli Lanski, JD
Facts
David Scott (defendant) was charged and convicted of attempted arson of a habitation and of a vehicle. The charges stemmed from Scott’s conduct late one night after he got drunk and high on cocaine and marijuana. He went to the home of his ex-girlfriend, who lived with her parents, and tried to call her. She refused to talk to him, and he became angry. He found a gasoline can lying near the home and poured gas on the house and a car in the driveway. At trial, Scott testified that he also tried to light some pieces of paper but was unsuccessful, and that the gasoline never ignited. He claimed that he decided to abandon his effort, left the gas can and paper on the ground, and left the scene. He testified that his decision to abandon his attempt to light a fire was made voluntarily and of his own volition. The fire marshal testified that the gas on the house and car did ignite and burn briefly. In addition, Scott’s ex-girlfriend’s mother testified that she awoke to the smell of gasoline that night, opened the exterior door of the home, and thought she saw a person crouched in the bushes. She turned on an outside light and called 911. Scott’s lawyer argued that the mother’s conduct did not impact Scott’s decision to abandon the crime and that Scott had renounced his criminal objective and was entitled to a reduced punishment as a result. The trial court disagreed and sentenced Scott to 17 years in prison.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gardner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

