The Court of Appeals in LAWRENCE N. HARRIS v. UNITED STATES, decided on October 29, 2015, reversed the appellant’s conviction for malicious destruction of property.

The appellant had shared a home with his mother and sister and while locked out of the property by her mother, the complaining witness, attempted to gain entrance by kicking the front door causing damage to the door and ultimately getting arrested.

Appellant was convicted under D.C. Code § 22-303, which states:

“[w]hoever maliciously injures or breaks or destroys, or attempts to injure or break or destroy, by fire or otherwise, any public or private property, whether real or personal, not his or her own,” shall be guilty of malicious destruction of property.

The trial court however concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict because the defendant had either intended to damage the door to gain entrance or acted with knowledge/awareness that his repeated kicking of the door with great force created a substantial risk of harm to it.

Conviction for malicious destructive of property requires the requisite criminal intent and also malice aforethought. The intent is to insure or destroy property for a bad or evil purpose.

The malice is defined as the absence of all elements or justification, excuse or mitigating circumstances, and the presence of either:

• An actual intent to cause the particular harm which is produced or harm of the same general nature, or
• The wanton and willful doing of an act with awareness of a plain and strong likelihood that such harm may result.

Consequently, conviction for malicious destruction of property requires proof beyond reasonable doubt intent to cause harm to the property or a willful and wanton act combined with the awareness of the “plain and strong” likelihood of that harm.

The appellate Court reviewing the factual findings of the trial court determined that the defendant although kicked the door several times and in fact damaged the frame – his intent was to gain entrance and access to his home rather than recklessly damaging property.

The damage was mostly around the doorknob and not on the lower and upper part of the door. The appellant was locked out several times that night due to his erratic behavior and each time found a way back to the house – again, reinforcing the evidence to gain access rather than intent to damage.

Damage to the frame was also not visible from the outside and thus the defendant could not have observed the damage he was causing again mitigating intent. At best the defendant was negligent but not criminally liable.

Even the trial court deemed that the evidence equally support that the defendant’s intent was to enter as to damage the door. And when and where the “evidence of guilt is in equipoise with evidence of innocence, it is perforce insufficient for conviction by the constitutional standard, beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Even though the opinion did not expressly address the exception in the statute that excludes damage to “property not his own” –- the Court was clearly persuaded by the fact that the defendant was on the lease and this was his legal residence and thus the front door would be technically considered his own property.

Refer to our Washington DC Criminal Lawyer page for more information on the subject.