Vandalism - Revision history

Sysop at 20:32, 22 March 2026

2026-03-22T20:32:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:32, 22 March 2026
Line 8:		Line 8:
	People v. Kurtenbach		People v. Kurtenbach
	Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.April 12, 2012204 Cal.App.4th 1264139 Cal.Rptr.3d 63712 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 40192012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4635 (Approx. 36 pages)		Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.April 12, 2012204 Cal.App.4th 1264139 Cal.Rptr.3d 63712 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 40192012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4635 (Approx. 36 pages)

			People v. Kahanic (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 461, 466 [241 Cal.Rptr. 722] [Pen. Code, § 594 includes damage by spouse to spousal community property].)

Sysop at 18:45, 6 July 2025

2025-07-06T18:45:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:45, 6 July 2025
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Vandalism is general intent crime. People v. Moore (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 889		Vandalism is general intent crime. People v. Moore (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 889

	To commit vandalism a defendant must do an act “maliciously.” (§ 594, subd. (a).) However, as we have stated, a person acts maliciously **651 either when acting with “a wish to vex, annoy, or injure another person” or with the “intent to do a wrongful act.” (§ 7, item 4.) As our Supreme Court has explained, the first type of malice described in section 7, item 4, is known as “[m]alice in fact” and “consists of actual ill will or intent to injure.” (In re V.V. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1020, 1028, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 421, 252 P.3d 979.) However, the second type of malice described in section 7, item 4, is known as “malice in law.” (In re V.V., at p. 1028, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 421, 252 P.3d 979.) “Malice in law may be ‘presumed’ or ‘implied’ from the intentional doing of the act without justification or excuse or mitigating circumstances.” (Ibid.)		To commit vandalism a defendant must do an act “maliciously.” (§ 594, subd. (a).) However, as we have stated, a person acts maliciously **651 either when acting with “a wish to vex, annoy, or injure another person” or with the “intent to do a wrongful act.” (§ 7, item 4.) As our Supreme Court has explained, the first type of malice described in section 7, item 4, is known as “[m]alice in fact” and “consists of actual ill will or intent to injure.” (In re V.V. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1020, 1028, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 421, 252 P.3d 979.) However, the second type of malice described in section 7, item 4, is known as “malice in law.” (In re V.V., at p. 1028, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 421, 252 P.3d 979.) “Malice in law may be ‘presumed’ or ‘implied’ from the intentional doing of the act without justification or excuse or mitigating circumstances.” (Ibid.)


	People v. Kurtenbach		People v. Kurtenbach
	Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.April 12, 2012204 Cal.App.4th 1264139 Cal.Rptr.3d 63712 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 40192012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4635 (Approx. 36 pages)		Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.April 12, 2012204 Cal.App.4th 1264139 Cal.Rptr.3d 63712 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 40192012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4635 (Approx. 36 pages)

Sysop: Created page with "Vandalism Vandalism is general intent crime. People v. Moore (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 889 To commit vandalism a defendant must do an act “maliciously.” (§ 594, subd. (a).) However, as we have stated, a person acts maliciously **651 either when acting with “a wish to vex, annoy, or injure another person” or with the “intent to do a wrongful act.” (§ 7, item 4.) As our Supreme Court has explained, the first type of malice described in section 7, item 4, is kn..."

2025-07-06T18:45:02Z

Created page with "Vandalism Vandalism is general intent crime. People v. Moore (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 889 To commit vandalism a defendant must do an act “maliciously.” (§ 594, subd. (a).) However, as we have stated, a person acts maliciously **651 either when acting with “a wish to vex, annoy, or injure another person” or with the “intent to do a wrongful act.” (§ 7, item 4.) As our Supreme Court has explained, the first type of malice described in section 7, item 4, is kn..."

New page

Vandalism

Vandalism is general intent crime. People v. Moore (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 889

To commit vandalism a defendant must do an act “maliciously.” (§ 594, subd. (a).) However, as we have stated, a person acts maliciously **651 either when acting with “a wish to vex, annoy, or injure another person” or with the “intent to do a wrongful act.” (§ 7, item 4.) As our Supreme Court has explained, the first type of malice described in section 7, item 4, is known as “[m]alice in fact” and “consists of actual ill will or intent to injure.” (In re V.V. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1020, 1028, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 421, 252 P.3d 979.) However, the second type of malice described in section 7, item 4, is known as “malice in law.” (In re V.V., at p. 1028, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 421, 252 P.3d 979.) “Malice in law may be ‘presumed’ or ‘implied’ from the intentional doing of the act without justification or excuse or mitigating circumstances.” (Ibid.)

People v. Kurtenbach
Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.April 12, 2012204 Cal.App.4th 1264139 Cal.Rptr.3d 63712 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 40192012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4635 (Approx. 36 pages)