Woman allegedly doused romantic partner with alcohol and lit her on fire during Valentine’s Day fight

Miami-Dade investigators say Shannon Felice Stork eventually acknowledged deliberately using alcohol and a flame after earlier describing the fire as accidental.

MIAMI, Fla. — More than two years after a Valentine’s Day apartment fire left one woman fatally injured, Miami-Dade investigators arrested 62-year-old Shannon Felice Stork and accused her of intentionally setting her roommate and romantic partner on fire during what authorities described as a personal dispute.

The July 22 arrest marked the latest turn in an investigation that began Feb. 14, 2024, when deputies and Miami-Dade Fire Rescue responded to an apartment in the Brownsville area after reports that two people had suffered serious burns. Investigators say Stork repeatedly described the blaze as an accident before testing, physical evidence and later questioning undermined those explanations. Authorities now allege that Stork admitted she deliberately directed isopropyl alcohol toward the victim and brought a flame close enough to ignite it. She faces second-degree murder and arson resulting in great bodily harm. The allegations have not been proven in court.

First responders found both Stork and the other woman outside the apartment after the fire, according to reports citing the arrest affidavit. Both had suffered significant burns and were taken to Jackson Memorial Hospital’s Ryder Trauma Center. The victim initially remained conscious but was later intubated because of the severity of her condition. Stork also suffered burns. The affidavit does not publicly identify the victim, and the reviewed reports do not provide additional biographical information about her. Authorities described the women as roommates and partners who shared the apartment where the fire occurred.

The victim remained hospitalized for more than a month. Investigators said she died from her injuries on March 18, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. Her death transformed the investigation into one involving a fatal fire, but an arrest did not immediately follow. Detectives continued examining what happened inside the apartment, including Stork’s descriptions of the ignition and evidence collected from the scene. The interval between the fire and the 2026 arrest became one of the case’s defining features: authorities were not relying only on what was said on the night of the incident but on an investigation that continued long after the victim died.

Stork initially offered investigators an accidental explanation, according to the affidavit as described by multiple news organizations. She said alcohol had been involved in cleaning shoes and that a cigarette was then lit, causing the fire. Reports differ slightly in how they summarize who was cleaning the shoes, but they agree that Stork presented the ignition as an unintended accident involving alcohol and a cigarette. Detectives said she later gave another account. Rather than resolve questions about the fire, investigators wrote that the changing statements conflicted with evidence found inside the apartment.

Those inconsistencies prompted investigators to seek specialized assistance. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives became involved in testing the scenarios Stork had described. According to the arrest affidavit, ATF personnel conducted reconstruction work designed to determine whether the fire could have occurred in the manner she reported. Investigators said the tests did not reproduce her account. The affidavit states that ATF personnel determined the version of events described by Stork could not be recreated. That conclusion became an important part of the evidence cited by authorities when they later accused her of deliberately starting the fire.

The reconstruction findings did not by themselves end the investigation. Detectives continued working the case for more than two years after the original blaze. On July 22, 2026, investigators brought Stork to the Miami-Dade Sheriff’s Office Homicide Bureau for another interview. Authorities said she was advised of her Miranda rights before questioning. During that interview, investigators allege, Stork again provided conflicting descriptions of what happened before acknowledging that she and the victim had been experiencing what the affidavit called “personal issues.” The available reports do not describe those issues in detail, and investigators have not publicly disclosed a more specific motive for the confrontation.

Authorities say the July interview produced a significant change in Stork’s account. According to the affidavit, she acknowledged intentionally squeezing or directing isopropyl alcohol from a bottle toward the victim, covering her with the flammable liquid. Investigators further allege Stork acknowledged bringing a flame to the alcohol and the victim. The affidavit says Stork told investigators that she had been trying to scare the other woman. Police treated that statement not as an explanation that made the conduct accidental, but as an admission of an intentional act that caused the victim’s burn injuries. Whether prosecutors can prove the allegations and the required elements of the charged crimes remains a question for the court.

The case therefore rests on more than a single statement attributed to Stork. As described in the arrest materials and news reports, authorities point to the original scene, the accounts she provided after the fire, the physical evidence that detectives said was inconsistent with those accounts, the ATF reconstruction efforts and her later statements during the homicide-bureau interview. The reviewed reports do not disclose the full collection of physical evidence, provide transcripts of every interview or identify every test conducted by federal investigators. Those details may become more significant if the prosecution proceeds toward evidentiary hearings or trial.

Stork was arrested shortly before 4 p.m. July 22 and booked that evening into the Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center, according to Local 10’s account of corrections records. She appeared in bond court the following morning before Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Mindy Glazer. In the domestic-violence case, she faced second-degree murder and arson causing great bodily harm. The judge denied bond and ordered pretrial detention. Stork also faced an unrelated controlled-substance possession charge in a separate case, for which bond was set at $2,500. The separate drug allegation is not described by authorities as part of the fatal-fire case.

Florida law treats second-degree murder as a distinct homicide offense, while state arson law separately addresses fires that result in great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigurement. The precise legal theories prosecutors ultimately pursue will depend on the charging documents and evidence presented in court. An arrest affidavit establishes the basis asserted by investigators for taking a person into custody; it is not a finding of guilt. Stork is accused of the offenses, and the state would have to prove its case through the judicial process before she could be convicted.

Several important facts remain undisclosed. The arrest affidavit did not publicly name the woman who died, according to the reviewed reports. Authorities also have not released a detailed account of what the partners were arguing about before the fire or explained publicly why the final arrest came more than two years after the victim’s death beyond the investigative steps outlined in the affidavit. No reviewed source establishes that Stork intended to kill the woman, and investigators attributed to her the statement that she intended to scare her. Prosecutors nevertheless charged her with second-degree murder and an arson-related offense based on the alleged conduct and its fatal result.

As of the latest reliable reporting reviewed, Stork remained detained in connection with the murder and arson case. The available record describes the prosecution as pending and does not establish a conviction, plea or final judgment. Future court filings may provide additional information about the evidence, the defense response and the timetable for the case.

Author note: Last updated Aug. 27, 2026.