Malicious Destruction of Property
Massachusetts General Laws chapter 266, §127 prohibits malicious destruction of property. To convict a defendant of this criminal offense, the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:
- The defendant destroyed or injured another person’s property.
- The defendant did so willfully. “Willful” means intentionally. An accidental act is not a willful act. In order to be willful, a person must intend both the act and the consequences.
- The defendant did so maliciously. “Malicious” means “out of cruelty, hostility or revenge.” In order for an act to be “malicious,” there must be some hostility towards the property owner, though it is not required that the owner’s identity be known to the defendant.
If one is charged with malicious destruction to property over $250, then the government must also prove that the property itself is worth more than $250. In other words, it is not the actual damage caused but the value of the property damaged. Malicious destruction to property over $250 is a felony in Massachusetts.
In addition to malicious destruction of property, General Laws chapter 266, §127 prohibits wanton destruction of property over $250. Destruction of property is “wanton” if done recklessly and with a conscious disregard of substantial harm to people or property. Foresight of or intent to cause the damage is not required, but mere negligence does not amount to “wanton” conduct. To be a “wanton” act, an act must be intentional and not accidental.
Malicious destruction of property over $250 is punishable by:
- Up to ten years in the state prison
- A fine of the greater of $3,000 or three times the value of the damaged property
- Up to 2 ½ years in jail
Malicious Destruction of Property Under $250 is Punishable by:
- A fine of three time the value of the damage to the property
- Up to 2 ½ months imprisonment
Massachusetts Property Crimes Defense Attorney (617) 263 6800
Stephen Neyman is a leading Massachusetts lawyer who has successfully defended countless individuals accused of malicious destruction of property. Attorney Neyman is known for his aggressive approach to defense in all cases. Malicious destruction of property charges can be serious and may affect your future. In order to minimize the impact of such criminal charges, it is wise to contact an experienced criminal lawyer right away.
Stephen Neyman has been defending the criminally accused for more than 20 years. He has the expertise to achieve the best possible result in your malicious destruction of property case. Attorney Neyman is often successful in getting these types of charges dismissed
Law Offices of Stephen Neyman, P.C. (617) 263-6800
To speak with Attorney Stephen Neyman about malicious destruction of property or any other criminal matter, call the Law Offices of Stephen Neyman, P.C. at (617) 263-6800 or contact Attorney Neyman by e-mail. His primary office is located in downtown Boston, and he also has a North Andover office for the convenience of his clients. Attorney Neyman regularly appears in courts all over the state, so do not hesitate to speak with him about a criminal matter in any Massachusetts or federal court.
Felony Charges of Larceny Over $1,200 and Malicious Destruction to Property Over $1,200 Dismissed
The defendant lives in Southeastern Massachusetts. In April of 2018 police were called to his ex-girlfriend's house. She was crying and told the officers that the defendant had entered her home stole several thousand dollars cash from her home, destroyed expensive appliances and wrote obscenities in lipstick on her walls. The police arrested the defendant and charged him with larceny over $1,200 and malicious destruction to property over $1,200. Both of these crimes are felonies in violation of G.L. c. 266 Section 30 and G.L. c. 266 Section 127 respectively. Several motions hearings and pretrial hearings were conducted at which we were able to require the prosecution to provide additional evidence. Those hearings resulted in an inability of the district attorney to prove our client's guilty and ultimately forced a dismissal of the case. All charges were dismissed.
Read More in G.L. c 266 Section 127
Pretrial Probation for Accountant Charged With Felony Malicious Destruction to a Motor Vehicle
The defendant is a partner in a large accounting firm. He lives in a very exclusive neighborhood in one of Boston's most lavish suburbs. On September 23, 2018 one of the defendant's neighbors saw him "keying" his car. The vehicle had been keyed on several other occasions, each time following a dispute between the neighbors. The victim never saw our client actually commit the act until this date. Not only did he personally witness it but he had installed surveillance equipment to identify the person. The police were called. They watched the video and listened to the victim's recitation of the events. Accordingly, they charged our client with violating G.L. c. 265 Section 28 malicious destruction to a motor vehicle. This is a felony in Massachusetts. A conviction or even a continuance without a finding would cost our client his job. Today, Attorney Neyman was able to get the charges reduced to a misdemeanor and resolved by way of pretrial probation under G.L. c. 276 Section 87. Our client will have no record and the case will be dismissed.
Read More in Violent Crimes
Felony Charges of Malicious Destruction to a Motor Vehicle do not Issue After Clerk Magistrate Hearing
The defendant is a partner in a major downtown Boston financial institution. In August of 2018 he was riding his moped on a busy street in a south shore town. A large SUV being operated by a young woman approached him at a distance he felt was very close. Angered, the man smashed the side mirror of the SUV causing damage. He was given a summons for a clerk magistrate hearing charging him with malicious destruction to a motor vehicle under G.L. c. 266 Section 28. This is a felony in Massachusetts. The man was also charged with violating G.L. c. 90 Section 24, negligent operation of a motor vehicle. He hired our office to defend him. Today, after a clerk magistrate the complaint did not issue.
Read More in Motor Vehicle Crimes