This evidence is sufficient to support a finding that Verdugo "set[] fire to or burn[ed] . . . any structure" within the meaning of section 451. He burned the paint, which was an integral part of the metal door. (See Fulford v. State (Md.App. 1969) 8 Md.App. 270, 273 [259 A.2d 551, 553] [arson conviction upheld where defendant's homemade fire bomb burned the paint off a metal window frame, the court noting, "While it was a metal frame, the paint had been burned completely off."]; Robinson v. State (Ala.App. 1971) 47 Ala.App. 51, 53 [249 So.2d 872, 874] [arson of a structure constructed of glass and metal upheld because "calking between metal and glass portions" burned].) The court also instructed the jury on attempted arson as a lesser included offense of arson.

[6,7] In the present case, the sheetrock ceiling and the wooden joists were a part of the "building" or "structure" for the purposes of the arson statute. State v. Nielson, 25 Utah 2d 11, 474 P.2d 725 (1970); see Fulford v. State, 8 Md. App. 270, 259 A.2d 551 (1969). The evidence indicated that it was possible for the sheetrock to "burn," and, therefore, defendant's claim of impossibility must fail.

Denied March 31, 1970Petition denied March 31, 1970. Opinion of Court of Special Appeals reported: 8 Md. App. 270.

"[A]ny amount" of "burning" will suffice, "provided there is a perceptible wasting of the fiber of . . . some part of th[e] building . . . by fire." Id. (emphasis added) (quoting 2A Michie's Jurisprudence, Arson § 1 (1981)); see also Fulford v. State, 259 A.2d 551, 553 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1969) (recognizing that the burning of a permanent fixture is adequate to establish this element of the offense of arson). The appellant asserts that because no witness specifically described any of the damage to the house as "charring" or provided any other evidence of "the actual burning of any portion of the residence or its fixtures," the evidence not only was insufficient but also "plainly established" that no "burning" of an occupied dwelling occurred.

"If there is the slightest burning of any part of the building, the offense [of arson] is complete." Fulford v. State, 8 Md. App. 270, 274 (1969), cert. denied, 257 Md. 733 (1970). Deputy McMahon testified that there was charring damage to the floor and walls of the townhome, and the photographs admitted into evidence show significant charring of the floor and adjacent walls.

420 U.S. 909, 95 S.Ct. 828, 42 L.Ed.2d 839 (1975), reh. den. 420 U.S. 984, 95 S.Ct. 1416, 43 L.Ed.2d 666 (1975); Fulford v. State, 8 Md. App. 270, 273, 259 A.2d 551 (1969). Our decision, moreover, to treat the contention in this fashion because of the abundance of corroboration does not intimate that we necessarily feel that this corroboration requirement is even applicable when we are dealing, as here, with in-court testimony acknowledging full guilt rather than with a mere extrajudicial confession.

In addition to the mens rea, an indispensable element of the crime, as it is with the common-law crime of arson, is proof of a burning of the building involved. "If there is the slightest burning of any part of the building, the offense is complete". Fulford v. State, 8 Md. App. 270, 259 A.2d 551 (1969). Appellant argues that there is no evidence that the building itself was burned.

I SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH GUILT IF APPELLANT WAS SANE AT THE TIME In speaking of the proof necessary to establish the corpusdelicti of the crime of arson, this Court said in Fulford v. State, 8 Md. App. 270, 273, 259 A.2d 551: "To establish the corpus delicti of the statutory crime of wilfully and maliciously burning a school [building] it need only be shown that a fire did occur, that there was a burning of the building, and that the fire was wilfully and maliciously set. * * *"

We have reviewed the evidence adduced and have no difficulty in determining that there was legally sufficient evidence supporting the findings of the trial judge. The credibility of the witnesses, as well as the weight to be given the evidence, were matters for the trier of fact. Fulford v. State, 8 Md. App. 270. There being evidence sufficient in law to sustain the verdicts, the court below was not clearly erroneous, and the judgments stand.

He concludes that since the State did not prove such matters untrue, the trier of fact was obliged to accept them. We do not agree. It is firmly established and has been consistently followed that the weight to be given evidence and the credibility of witnesses are matters for the trier of fact. Fulford v. State, 8 Md. App. 270. The court as the trier of fact was not obliged to believe every assertion made as a fact by appellant in his statement.