Criminal Damage to Property Lawyer
What is the law on Criminal Damage to Property?
There is more than one law prohibiting criminal damage to property. The State of Kansas has a law prohibiting criminal damage to property and then each city has their own law against criminal damage to property. Here is the State Law:
21-5813. Criminal damage to property.
(a) Criminal damage to property is by means other than by fire or explosive:
Knowingly damaging, destroying, defacing or substantially impairing the use of any property in which another has an interest without the consent of such other person; or
damaging, destroying, defacing or substantially impairing the use of any property with intent to injure or defraud an insurer or lienholder.
(b) Criminal damage to property if the property:
Is damaged to the extent of $25,000 or more is a severity level 7, nonperson felony;
is damaged to the extent of at least $1,000 but less than $25,000 is a severity level 9, nonperson felony; and
damaged is of the value of less than $1,000 or is of the value of $1,000 or more and is damaged to the extent of less than $1,000 is a class B nonperson misdemeanor.
Here are a couple of the city laws prohibiting criminal damage to property.
Is Criminal Damage to Property a felony or a misdemeanor?
It depends. The severity of the criminal charge is nearly always linked to the value of the item that is damaged. The more valuable the item the more severe the crime. Most criminal damage to property cases involve damage to property that is valued at less than $1000. Those are generally misdemeanor offenses. When the value of the damage exceeds $1000 but is less than $25,000 then it is a level 9 felony. When the value of the damage is more than $25,000 but less than $100,000 then it is a level 7 felony. When the value of the damage is over $100,000 then it is a level 5 felony.
For example, imagine you go to a store to steal a video game but the video game is in a secure glass case. You break the glass case and steal the video game. You could be charged with misdemeanor theft for stealing the game, however, you could also be charged with a level 9 felony for damaging the glass case holding the game.
Similarly, imagine you got mad at a boyfriend and keyed his car, even though the car may be valued at over $50,000 the entire value of the car isn't what was damaged. You would look at the damage you caused by keying the car as the value of the damage to calculate what level of charge you should be charged with. If the cost of fixing the scratch was less than $1000 then you would be charged with a misdemeanor. If the cost to get the scratch fixed was more than $1000 then you would be charged with a felony.
What court will my case be heard in for a criminal damage case?
Criminal damage cases can be heard in both the municipal court as well as the Johnson County District Court. If the crime is a felony then it will always end up in district court. If it is a misdemeanor it will depend on who is charging you with the violation of the law and the arresting agency. If the case is being charged by the city prosecutor then it will end up in city court. If it is charged by the State prosecutor it will end up in district court.
What if I damaged my own property, is that still against the law?
You would be shocked how often this question comes up and how often people get it wrong. You can't get in trouble for damaging something that is completely owned by you. However, if anyone has an interest in the property you damaged, you are subject to being arrested, charged and convicted of criminal damage to property. Let's look at a couple of examples:
Example 1: Wife and husband get into an argument. Wife punches a wall and knocks a hole in the drywall. Cops get called. Wife and husband own the house. Wife can be convicted as the husband has a shared ownership interest in the house.
Example 2: Wife and husband get into an argument. Wife punches a wall and knocks a hole in the drywall. Cops get called. Wife owned the house before she married husband. Wife can be convicted as the husband has a marital interest in the appreciable interest in the house.
Example 3: Boyfriend and Girlfriend get into an argument. Boyfriend punches a wall and knocks a hole in the drywall. Cops get called. Boyfriend owns the house. Boyfriend can NOT be convicted as he is the sole owner of the property.
Example 4: Boyfriend and Girlfriend get into an argument. Boyfriend punches a wall and knocks a hole in the drywall. Cops get called. Boyfriend leases the house from a landlord. Boyfriend can be convicted as the landlord is the sole owner of the property subject to a leasehold interest.
Can you be convicted of criminal damage to property if you accidentally damage someone else's property?
Short answer: No.
Every case of criminal damage to property has an element of intent that must be proven. You can't get convicted for accidentally damaging property.
What type of intent is necessary to be proven in a criminal damage to property case?
To find the answer to this question we look at this case : In re D.A., 197 P.3d 849 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
Answer: General intent (knowingly or purposefully causing damage)
This case explored the issue of what type of intent was necessary to be convicted of criminal damage to property. In exploring this case, the court held that criminal damage to property was a general intent crime, meaning that the only intent the plaintiff needed to convict the defendant was that the defendant purposefully or knowingly caused the damage. Id. at 859.
In this case, the 12-year-old defendant was charged with burglary and criminal damage to property after vandalizing a church. Id. at 852. The charges arose from an incident on October 8, 2006 where the defendant was discovered by the pastor with various items of church property strewn around him. Id. Upon entering the church, the pastor observed widespread damage from vandalism throughout the church. Id. Nine rooms in total were damaged including: torn off walls, smashed light bulbs, ceiling fans with missing blades, tipped over pianos, graffiti on the bathroom doors, water-damaged floors, a smashed chandelier, broken bathroom mirrors, paper-clogged toilets, and glitter glue on the carpets and steps. Id. In the end, the defendant was judged as a juvenile offender and convicted of criminal damage to property. Id. at 853.
On appeal, the defendant argued that he lacked the mental maturity (diminished capacity) to form the intent necessary to be convicted of criminal damage to property. Id. at 859. In response to the defendant’s argument, the court held that criminal damage to property was a general intent crime (defendant purposefully or knowingly committed the crime). Id. Therefore, the court noted that the only intent the plaintiff needed to prove to convict the defendant was that the defendant purposefully or knowingly caused damage to the church. Id. Furthermore, the court stated that as long as the defendant’s actions inside the church were not accidental or involuntary, the defendant possessed the required culpable intent. Id.
In further addressing the defendant’s argument, the court concluded that it was clear from the evidence that the defendant’s actions were not accidents and that he knew what he was doing. Id. For example, the defendant intentionally entered the church, intentionally broke windows, lights, and mirrors, intentionally caused the sinks and toilets to overflow, intentionally overturned expensive electronic organs, and intentionally wrote profanity on the women’s bathroom doors. Id. Additionally, the defendant’s expert witness testified that his extensive developmental disorders were not so debilitating as to prevent him from controlling his actions. Id. The court mentioned that the diminished capacity standard in Kansas focused on whether a defendant had the required criminal state of mind, not on his or her ability to make moral choices. Id. Therefore, the court held that the defendant intended the consequences of his actions so his diminished capacity argument failed. Id.
In conclusion, general intent (knowingly or purposefully causing damage) was the only intent necessary to convict the defendant of criminal damage to property