People v. Wallace
123 Cal. App. 4th 144, 19 Cal. Rptr. 3d 790 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person is criminally liable for vandalism if they intentionally damage property in which their spouse has an ownership interest, regardless of whether the property is community or separate, and whether the damage occurs inside or outside the marital home.
Facts:
- Arlissa Pointer Wallace owned a house for several years before marrying Anthony LeRoy Wallace.
- After the marriage, community property funds were used for mortgage payments, giving Wallace a small community property interest in the house.
- One evening, after Pointer confronted Wallace about his drug use and told him to leave, he began to tear up the house and destroy property.
- Most of the destroyed property, including furniture and furnishings, was Pointer's separate property.
- Frightened, Pointer tried to signal neighbors for help and called 911 twice but hung up out of fear.
- Wallace left but returned a few hours later and continued destroying property until police arrived and arrested him.
- An expert estimated the damage at over $9,000 to the house and over $6,000 to its contents.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Anthony LeRoy Wallace in a trial court with felony vandalism and two misdemeanors.
- A jury found Wallace guilty of felony vandalism and the misdemeanors, and also found true two prior serious felony allegations.
- The trial court sentenced Wallace to a term of 25 years to life for the felony vandalism, plus consecutive terms for the priors.
- Wallace, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the California 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 person commit the crime of vandalism under California Penal Code § 594 when they destroy property they own jointly with their spouse or their spouse's separate property within the marital home?
Opinions:
Majority - Gomes, J.
Yes. A person commits the crime of vandalism by destroying property in which their spouse has an interest, even if it is community property located within the marital home. The court rejected Wallace's argument that one cannot vandalize their own home, distinguishing vandalism from burglary. While burglary concerns unlawful entry into a place, vandalism concerns the physical destruction of another's ownership interest. The essence of vandalism is the damage to an ownership interest, even if that ownership is shared. Therefore, destroying community property or a spouse's separate property damages the other spouse's interest and falls within the vandalism statute.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that marital property rights do not shield a spouse from criminal liability for property destruction in a domestic context. By extending the vandalism statute to cover community property within the marital home, the court closed a potential loophole and strengthened protections for victims of domestic abuse, where property destruction is often a precursor to physical violence. This aligns California with an emerging majority rule in other states and clarifies that the harm is to the co-owner's interest, not just to the property itself.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Wallace