Is arson a general intent crime?

The "malice [element of vandalism] ensures that the act is 'done with a design to do an intentional wrongful act . . . without any legal justification, excuse or claim of right.' [Citation.]" (People v. Atkins (2001) 25 Cal.4th 76, 88, italics added [discussing whether arson is a general intent crime].) Here the jury was expressly told that self-defense did not apply "in this case" so it had no alternative but to conclude that defendant's act of vandalism was unlawful and thus maliciously done rather than done with legal justification or excuse. As with the assault offenses and brandishing, the instructional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and reversal is required.