State of Louisiana v. Cross Sebastian McCray

── State of Louisiana v. Cross Sebastian McCray ── Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal Date: May 20, 2026 Author: Shonda STONE Category: General Judgment rendered May 20, 2026. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P. No. 56,866-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA ***** STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee versus CROSS SEBASTIAN MCCRAY Appellant ***** Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 399,445 Honorable Chris Victory, Judge ***** THE HARVILLE LAW FIRM, LLC Counsel for Appellant By: Douglas Lee Harville JAMES E. STEWART, SR. Counsel for Appellee District Attorney MARY JOINER ABLE COURTNEY RAY VICTORIA T. WASHINGTON Assistant District Attorneys ***** Before STONE, MARCOTTE, and ELLENDER, JJ. STONE, J. This case arises from the First Judicial District Court, the Honorable Chris Victory presiding. Cross Sebastian McCray (the “defendant”) was charged with and – after a jury trial – convicted of simple arson in violation of La. R.S. 14:52(a)(2). Specifically, the state’s amended bill of information (“BOI”) alleged that, on or about December 20, 2022, the defendant “started a fire while engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of another felony offense even though he did not have the intent to start a fire at 4118 & 4120 Curtis Lane where the damage amounted to more than $500.” On June 17, 2025, the trial court sentenced the defendant to 10 years of imprisonment at hard labor. On July 14, 2025, the defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence. The trial court denied this motion without hearing on July 15, 2025. On appeal, the defendant in effect argues: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for simple (unintentional) arson because, actually, he started the fire on purpose; and (2) his ten-year sentence is excessive. While the defendant frames the attack on his conviction as a “sufficiency of the evidence” claim, it turns on statutory interpretation. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm. FACTS Around 9:00 p.m. on December 19, 2022, the defendant commenced a burglary at his place of employment – an auto mechanic shop on Curtis Lane in Shreveport. His endeavors kept him in the building past midnight. At 1:24 a.m. on December 20, 2022, he exited the building driving the car – a 1989 Cutlass – he was stealing along with the tools he was also stealing inside the trunk. He re-entered the building five minutes later, poured fluid from a fuel can around the place, and set it afire. The security camera recorded this episode. On May 1, 2024, the defendant was charged with one count of simple arson; the original BOI cited La. R.S. 14:52 but did not allege any specific facts (other than identifying the victims) or specify whether the defendant committed the crime as defined in subsection (a)(1), subsection (a)(2), or both. On May 2, 2025, the state filed an amended BOI again citing La. R.S. 14:52 and charging the defendant thereunder, but also specified that the defendant violated the statute in that he “started a fire while engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of another felony offense even though he did not have the intent to start a fire at 4118 & 4120 Curtis Lane where the damage amounted to more than $500.” That allegation tracks the language of subsection (a)(2) of the statute. Less than a week later,