State v. Coria

Washington Supreme Court
48 P.3d 980 (2002)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Damaging community property constitutes damaging the "property of another" for the purposes of the malicious mischief statute. A person's co-ownership interest in community property does not give them the right to maliciously damage or destroy it, as doing so infringes upon the other spouse's co-equal ownership and possessory rights.

Facts:

Angel Coria and his wife, Kristen Coria, had an argument at a restaurant.
During the car ride home, an altercation occurred in which Kristen Coria sustained a facial injury.
After arriving home, Kristen called 911, and Angel left the premises.
Angel Coria returned later that night while his wife was not in the house.
While alone in the home, Angel Coria damaged numerous household items, including a mirror, television, microwave, and doors.
The damaged items were community property, jointly owned by both Angel and Kristen Coria.
A police officer estimated the total value of the damage to be approximately $620.

Procedural Posture:

The State of Washington charged Angel Coria in trial court with second-degree assault, second-degree malicious mischief, and willful killing of a pet.
A jury found Coria guilty of assault and malicious mischief but could not reach a verdict on the pet killing charge.
Coria, as appellant, appealed his convictions to the Washington Court of Appeals, Division Two.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the assault conviction but reversed the malicious mischief conviction, holding that community property was not 'property of another.'
The State of Washington, as petitioner, sought and was granted review by the Supreme Court of Washington on the malicious mischief issue.

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 damaging community property that a defendant co-owns with their spouse constitute damaging "property of another" under Washington's malicious mischief statute, RCW 9A.48.080(1)(a)?

Opinions:

Majority - Owens, J.

Yes. Damaging community property co-owned with a spouse constitutes damaging the 'property of another' under the malicious mischief statute. The court's reasoning is based on several points. First, the plain language of the statute supports this interpretation, as the property belongs to 'another' person (the spouse), regardless of the defendant's own interest. Second, Washington's domestic violence statutes show a clear legislative intent to enforce criminal laws without regard to marital status, preventing the domestic relationship from serving as a defense. Third, the common law rule for larceny, which held that a co-owner could not steal from another, is inapplicable because malicious mischief involves destruction, which permanently extinguishes the other owner's interest, a distinct and more severe harm than the temporary deprivation of possession in theft. Finally, a co-owner's rights in community property are not exclusive and do not include the right to infringe upon the other co-owner's identical rights by destroying the property.

Concurring - Madsen, J.

Yes. While agreeing that community property is 'property of another,' this opinion clarifies that for the purpose of determining the degree of the offense based on monetary value, only the victim-spouse's one-half interest in the community property should be considered. Under Washington law, each spouse has a separate, one-half ownership interest. Therefore, the 'property of another' that was damaged is the wife's one-half share. In this case, the state proved damage of $555, making the wife's half interest worth $277.50, which still exceeds the $250 statutory threshold for second-degree malicious mischief, so the conviction is properly affirmed.

Dissenting - Sanders, J.

No. The term 'property of another' in the malicious mischief statute does not encompass a defendant's own community property which he co-possesses. Because the statute does not define the term, its common law meaning must be applied. At common law, property crimes did not extend to property that a defendant co-owned and lawfully possessed. The legislature has specifically amended the theft statute to cover partnership property but has not done so for community property in the malicious mischief statute, indicating an intent to retain the common law rule. Furthermore, the statute is ambiguous, and under the rule of lenity, any ambiguity in a criminal statute must be resolved in favor of the defendant. Creating criminal liability by judicial interpretation in the complex area of community property raises due process concerns about fair notice.

Analysis:

This decision formally rejects the argument that community property ownership can be a shield against criminal liability for property destruction in a domestic context. It firmly distinguishes the legal analysis for malicious mischief (focused on the destruction of value and infringement of a co-owner's rights) from the traditional common law analysis for theft (focused on possession). The ruling aligns Washington with a modern trend that prioritizes the protection of individual ownership interests, even within a marriage, thereby strengthening legal protections for victims of domestic violence by ensuring that destruction of joint assets is a prosecutable offense.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Coria (2002)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"