Destruction of Property - DC Lawyer/Attorney

Destruction of property in Washington, D.C. is the deliberate damaging or destruction of another person’s property. The offense can be charged as either a misdemeanor or felony under D.C. Code § 22-303, depending on the value of the property or the amount of damage.

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.

Although past accomplishments are no guarantee of future success, Koehler Law has achieved successful outcomes for many clients charged with this offense. For example, with its practice focused exclusively on criminal defense and civil protection order litigation in D.C. Superior Court, all charges against a Koehler Law client were dismissed in August 2026 in a well-publicized case involving the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

Offense	Destruction of property
D.C. Code	D.C. Code § 22-404
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,o00 for misdemeanor
Common defenses	Mistake or accident; lack of intent; consent
Court	D.C. Superior Court

Below is everything you need to know about Destruction of Property in D.C.:

WHAT IS DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY IN WASHINGTON, D.C.?

It is a criminal offense under D.C. Code § 22-303 to maliciously injure, break, destroy or attempt to injury, break or destroy public or private property belonging to another person.

To convict someone of destruction of property, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:

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; and
the defendant acted without justification, excuse or mitigating circumstances.

WHAT DOES “MALICE” MEAN IN A DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY CASE?

Not every intentional act that results in damaged property constitutes destruction of property.

A person may intentionally push, pull, kick, grab, remove, or otherwise interact with an object without necessarily intending to damage it. The circumstances surrounding the act therefore matter.

The required mental state — or mens rea — for destruction of property has also been described as “general intent with malice.” Russell v. United States, 65 A.3d 1172, 1183 (D.C. 2013). 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” can be established through an actual intent to cause the harm or though the intentional performance of an act with awareness of a strong likelihood that the harm will result. Charles v. United States, 371 A.2d 404, 411 (D.C. 1977).

WHAT ARE COMMON DEFENSES TO DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY?

Although every case is different, common issues include the following:

Lack of malicious intent

The lack 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 ve important to this issue.

Ownership of the property

D.C. Code § 22-303 applies to property “not his or her own.” The government therefore 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.

IS DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY A FELONY OR MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE?

It can be either.

If the property is valued at $1,000 or more, the offense is punishable as a felony by imprisonment for up to 10 years and/or a maximum fine of $25,000. Otherwise, the offense is a misdemeanor with a maximum punishment of 180 days imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $1,000. D.C. Criminal Code § 22-303.

CAN A FIRST-TIME OFFENDER GET DIVERSION?

Depending on the facts of the case, yes.

First-time offenders 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.

DO I NEED A LAWYER?

Although you have an absolute right to represent yourself in a criminal proceeding, D.C. Superior Court judges will make it extraordinarily difficult for you to do so.

This is because of the enormous stakes that are involved in a criminal case — both in terms of your immediate liberty and in terms of the longer-term consequences of having a criminal conviction on your record. If you cannot afford a lawyer, the court will appoint one to represent you.

WHY HIRE KOEHLER LAW FOR DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY CASE IN D.C.?

Because every case is different, Koehler Law can never guarantee a specific outcome. At the same time, Jamison Koehler has secured successful outcomes — including outright acquittal after trial — on behalf of many people charged with this offense.

In one case, for example, our client was accused of breaking the door handle of another person’s car during a road rage incident. The court agreed that our client lacked the necessary criminal intent — the grabbing of the door handle was intended to open the door, not to damage the door handle.

Similarly, another client was found not guilty of damaging the door to a convenience store. Her intent was to leave the store, not to destroy property.

Most recently, Koehler Law secured the dismissal in August 2026 of all charges against a client in connection with the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

Last updated: September 9, 2026