State v. Nastoff
862 P.2d 1089, 1993 Ida. App. LEXIS 177, 124 Idaho 667 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for malicious injury to property under I.C. § 18-7001 requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant possessed the specific intent to injure or destroy property. The intent to commit a different wrongful act, which unintentionally results in property damage, is insufficient to satisfy the statute's 'malice' element.
Facts:
- James P. Nastoff and two associates were cutting wood in Valley County.
- Nastoff owned and operated a chainsaw that had been illegally modified with the spark arrester removed and holes punched in the muffler cover.
- Nastoff was aware of these modifications, which caused the saw to emit carbon particles during operation.
- Two days after Nastoff was woodcutting, a five-acre timber fire ignited on state and private land in the same area.
- The prosecution's theory was that carbon emitted from Nastoff's saw smoldered on the ground for two days before starting the fire.
- The state conceded that Nastoff did not intend to start the fire or burn the timber.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged James P. Nastoff in district court with one felony count of malicious injury to property and three misdemeanors.
- At the jury trial for the felony charge, Nastoff moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the state's case, but the trial court denied the motion.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Nastoff guilty.
- Nastoff filed post-verdict motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial, which the district court also denied.
- The district court entered an order withholding judgment on the verdict.
- Nastoff (appellant) appealed the order to the Court of Appeals of Idaho (the court of intermediate appeal), with the State as the appellee.
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 the 'intent to do a wrongful act' component of malice, as required for a conviction of malicious injury to property under I.C. § 18-7001, require proof of an intent to cause the property damage itself, or is an intent to commit a different wrongful act that results in the damage sufficient?
Opinions:
Majority - Lansing, Judge
No. For a conviction of malicious injury to property, the 'malice' element requires proof of an intent to cause the prohibited harm—the injury to property—and not merely the intent to commit a different wrongful act that accidentally leads to that harm. The court reasoned that the plain language of the statute, which states a person 'maliciously injures or destroys' property, indicates that the malicious intent must attach to the act of injuring or destroying. Citing the criminal law principle requiring a 'union, or joint operation, of act and intent' (actus reus and mens rea), the court held that the mens rea for one crime cannot be transferred to the actus reus of another. To adopt the state's interpretation would improperly punish merely negligent conduct under a statute that explicitly requires malice, a result the legislature would have specified with words like 'negligently' or 'recklessly' if that were its intent.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the fundamental criminal law principle of concurrence, requiring that a defendant's mental state must directly correspond to the specific criminal act they are charged with. It prevents the state from bootstrapping a minor offense (operating an illegal chainsaw) into a felony (malicious destruction of property) when the felony-level harm was an unintended, negligent consequence. The ruling clarifies that 'malice' under this statute demands specific intent to cause the proscribed harm, not a generalized 'bad intent' from a separate, unrelated wrongful act. This protects defendants from facing serious felony charges for what amounts to criminal negligence.
