Court Rules Vandalism in Jail Setting is Different than Vandalism Outside; Be Specific in Your Charges

By: Ray Hill, Professor Emeritus 
Santa Rosa Junior College 

Legal Issue 

A defendant may not be prosecuted for vandalism (594 p.c.) for damaging jail property since a more specific statute covers this act (4600 P.C.) 

Facts: While incarcerated in the Tuolumne County Jail, a defendant hit a cell window with a long broom handle, causing damage from top to bottom. The window required total replacement at a cost of $407.44. She was convicted of both felony vandalism and misdemeanor damaging jail property.  

She appealed on two grounds. First, that she could not be convicted of both crimes, because the damaging jail property (4600 P.C.) was the more applicable section. Second, installation cost ($161.97)) should not be part of the calculation of vandalism. Thus, if the vandalism statute did apply, she only committed a misdemeanor ($245.47) for the actual cost of the window itself. 

Held: 5DCA ruled the felony vandalism count must be reversed because the more specific statute (4600 P.C.) covered the defendant’s conduct. Given the wording of this statute, the legislature intended a defendant’s conduct to be prosecuted when the acts occurred in a jail setting. 4600 P.C. is a misdemeanor no matter what damage occurs. The defendant’s felony conviction was ....