Destruction of Property in Washington, D.C.
| Statute | D.C. Code § 22-303 |
|---|---|
| Classification | Felony (damage $1,000 or more) or misdemeanor (damage less than $1,000) |
| Maximum jail | 10 years for felony; 180 days for misdemeanor |
| Maximum fine | $25,000 for felony; $1,000 for misdemeanor |
| Court | D.C. Superior Court |
| Common defenses | Mistake or accident; lack of intent; consent |
What is destruction of property in Washington, D.C.?
Destruction of property in Washington, D.C. is the deliberate damaging or destruction of another person's property. It is a criminal offense under D.C. Code § 22-303 to maliciously injure, break, destroy or attempt to injure, break or destroy public or private property belonging to another person.
An important issue in many destruction of property cases is "criminal intent." It is not enough that property was damaged. The government must also prove the required malicious state of mind. Accidental damage is not enough.
To convict someone of destruction of property in D.C., the prosecution must prove each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The defendant damaged or destroyed, or attempted to damage or destroy, property.
- The property belonged to another person.
- The property had some value.
- The defendant acted voluntarily and on purpose, and not by mistake or accident.
- The defendant acted with the intent to damage or destroy the property, or despite knowing that his or her conduct created a substantial risk of harm to the property.
- The defendant acted without justification, excuse or mitigating circumstances.
Is destruction of property in D.C. a felony or a misdemeanor?
| Charge | Property value | Maximum penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Felony | $1,000 or more | 10 years imprisonment and/or $25,000 fine |
| Misdemeanor | Less than $1,000 | 180 days imprisonment and/or $1,000 fine |
What does "malice" mean in a D.C. destruction of property case?
Not every intentional act that results in damaged property constitutes destruction of property in D.C. A person may intentionally push, pull, kick, grab, remove, or otherwise interact with an object without necessarily intending to damage it.
The required mental state, or mens rea, for destruction of property has been described as "general intent with malice." The government must prove that the defendant "acted with a specific disregard of a known and substantial risk of the harm which the statute is intended to prevent."
Malice in a destruction of property case can be established through either an actual intent to cause the harm, or the intentional performance of an act with awareness of a strong likelihood that the harm will result.
What are the common defenses to destruction of property in D.C.?
Lack of malicious intent: the fact that a defendant intentionally did something does not necessarily mean that the defendant intended to damage property or acted with the required disregard of a known risk of damage. This distinction can be particularly important when property was damaged as the unintended consequence of some other action.
Mistake or accident: the government must prove that the defendant acted with the required criminal intent. Property damage caused purely by mistake or accident does not satisfy that requirement.
Insufficient proof as to what caused the damage: as with any criminal charge, the prosecution must prove that the defendant was the person who committed the alleged offense. Identification, witness credibility, surveillance video, photographs, and other evidence may be important to this issue.
Ownership of the property: D.C. Code § 22-303 applies to property "not his or her own." The government must establish that the property allegedly damaged was the property of another.
Value of the property: the value of the damaged property determines whether destruction of property is punishable as a felony or misdemeanor. The government's proof concerning value can therefore determine the potential penalty.
Can a first-time offender get diversion for destruction of property in D.C.?
Depending on the defendant's prior contacts with the criminal justice system, yes. First-time offenders charged with destruction of property in D.C. may be eligible for some type of diversion program in which they perform an agreed-upon set of conditions instead of going to trial.
In the case of a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), for example, the defendant agrees to perform community service, typically 32 to 48 hours over a 6 to 9-month period. In exchange, the government agrees to dismiss the charges upon successful completion of the hours.
Restitution is also a common requirement in destruction of property cases. The defendant will typically be required to pay for repairing or replacing the damaged property.
What Jamison Koehler has achieved in these cases.
| Case | Citation | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Wiley v. United States | 264 A.3d 1204 (D.C. 2021) | D.C. Court of Appeals reversed a destruction of property conviction where the defendant removed a lock from a gate on a house he believed he owned; the evidence showed an intent to secure, not damage, the property. |