People v. Kahanic
196 Cal. App. 3d 461, 241 Cal. Rptr. 722 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person can be criminally liable for vandalizing community property because, for the purposes of a vandalism statute prohibiting damage to property "not his own," the property is not considered wholly their own due to the spouse's equal and existing ownership interest.
Facts:
- The defendant and her husband were in the process of a marital dissolution.
- The defendant located her husband visiting another woman at a residence.
- The husband had parked their community property Mercedes Benz in front of the residence.
- After being unable to gain entry to the residence, the defendant drove away, acquired a bottle of beer, and returned.
- The defendant then drove by and threw the beer bottle from her car, breaking the rear window of the community property Mercedes.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was arrested and charged with vandalism under Penal Code section 594.
- At trial in the municipal court (court of first instance), the defendant argued she could not vandalize her own property.
- The defendant was convicted of vandalism in the municipal court.
- The defendant appealed her conviction to the superior court (intermediate appellate court), which affirmed the conviction.
- The defendant then sought review of the misdemeanor conviction from the Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a spouse's act of damaging community property, in which they hold an equal ownership interest, constitute the crime of vandalism of property "not his own" under California Penal Code section 594?
Opinions:
Majority - Woolpert, Acting P. J.
Yes, a spouse's act of damaging community property constitutes vandalism under a statute prohibiting damage to property "not his own." The phrase "not his own" excludes criminality only when the property is wholly owned by the actor. Because a spouse has a present, existing, and equal ownership interest in community property, damaging that property infringes upon an interest that is not the actor's own. The court drew an analogy to partnership law, citing People v. Sobiek, which established that a partner can be found guilty of embezzling from a partnership despite having an undivided interest in its assets. The court reasoned that the purpose of criminal law is to deter the deprivation of other people's economic interests, and a spouse's community property interest is a protected economic interest against unilateral destruction by the other spouse.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the existence of a community property interest does not shield a spouse from criminal liability for vandalism. By extending the legal reasoning applied to partnership property in People v. Sobiek to marital property, the court established that shared ownership does not grant a right to unilateral destruction. This precedent solidifies the principle that criminal law protects individual ownership interests even within a collective ownership structure like a marriage, ensuring that disputes over shared assets that involve malicious damage can be addressed in criminal court, not just family court.
