Grand Rapids Malicious Destruction of Property Lawyer

Charged with malicious destruction of property in Michigan? The dollar amount and the intent decide the grade

I am Mitchell Bisson, a Grand Rapids criminal defense lawyer. I have litigated for over 15 years. This page covers Michigan charges for willfully and maliciously damaging or destroying someone else’s property: a car, a phone, a door, a window, a wall, a fence or a building. The same set of statutes covers a keyed car, a punched wall and graffiti. A single broken item can be a 93-day misdemeanor or, depending on the dollar figure, a felony with up to 10 years. I start with the exact statute and subsection charged, the amount the prosecutor claims and the evidence of who did it and why. I do not promise outcomes.

The short answer. Willfully and maliciously destroying or injuring another person’s personal property is charged under MCL 750.377a. Doing it to another person’s house, barn or other building is charged under MCL 750.380. In both, the grade turns on the amount of the destruction or injury: $20,000 or more is a felony with up to 10 years, $1,000 to under $20,000 is a felony with up to 5 years, $200 to under $1,000 is a misdemeanor with up to 1 year and under $200 is a misdemeanor with up to 93 days. Prior convictions and incidents added together over 12 months can raise the grade. Nothing here predicts how your case will end.

These cases are often filed after an argument, a neighbor dispute, a breakup or a night out, on one person’s account and a repair estimate. The prosecutor has to prove more than that something was broken. The statute requires a willful and malicious act, which means an intent to damage the property, that the property belonged to someone else, that you were the person who did it and an amount of damage that fits the tier charged. Each of those can be tested, and the dollar figure in particular is often negotiable or open to challenge.

This page is about the property-damage statutes. If the same incident also involves a claim of assault, a protective order or a fire, those are separate charges with their own elements, and I look at them separately.

The charges at a glance

Offense class is one input to the sentencing guidelines. It is not the sentence. The statute also provides separate offenses for plants and turf, school buses and utility equipment, which I do not cover here.

What the prosecutor has to prove

The model criminal jury instruction for personal property lists four elements the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: that the property belonged to someone else, that the defendant destroyed or damaged it, that the defendant did so knowing it was wrong, without just cause or excuse where the evidence raises that point, and with the intent to damage or destroy the property, and that the extent of the damage fell in one of the four dollar ranges. M Crim JI 32.2. The instruction for buildings has the same four parts, with a building or anything permanently attached to it as the property. M Crim JI 32.3. The use notes to both say this is a specific intent crime.

The Court of Appeals reached the same place in People v. Culp, 108 Mich. App. 452, 458 (1981), holding that a conviction under the statute requires a specific intent to damage property or to injure its owner, and that a defendant who lacks the intent to injure or destroy the property cannot be convicted. That is why a dropped phone, a car that backs into a fence or a door broken by accident does not fit the statute as written. Intent can be shown by circumstances, however, so I look at what was said, what happened before and after and whether the force used matches the story of an accident.

Identity matters too. The Court of Appeals has said that identity is an essential element of every crime. People v. Fairey, 325 Mich. App. 645, 649 (2018). In graffiti, keyed-car and broken-window cases, there is often no one who saw it happen, and the connection to the accused rests on a video, a neighbor’s guess, a prior dispute or a social media post. I ask whether that evidence shows who did it or only who might have wanted to.

How the amount of damage is measured

The amount is an element, and it sets the tier, so it is often the most contested fact. The model instruction says the test for the extent of damage is the reasonable and fair market value of repairing the damage or of replacing the property destroyed, measured at the time and in the place where the damage occurred. M Crim JI 32.1.

In People v. Hamblin, 224 Mich. App. 87, 96 to 98, 101 (1997), a case about a broken car window, the owner replaced the glass himself with a used one for $45, while three repair shops estimated $153.32 to $241.20. The Court of Appeals held that the prosecutor may show either the difference in market value before and after the injury or the reasonable cost of repair, and that the owner’s actual out-of-pocket cost is evidence of value but is not controlling. The case arose under an older statute with a $100 felony line and at the bindover stage, so it does not say how a jury must be instructed at trial under the current tiers. It does show that the receipt is not automatically the number.

Because the tiers sit at $200, $1,000 and $20,000, I look closely at the estimate itself. Does it cover only the damaged part, or unrelated work? Is the labor rate reasonable? Was the item old, worn or already damaged? Could a comparable item be replaced for less? A reduction in the figure can move a charge from one tier to the next, which is often a more direct route to a lower charge than anything else.

Prior convictions and damage from several incidents

Two parts of the statute raise a charge above the dollar tier. First, prior convictions. A person who commits the $200 to under $1,000 offense and has one or more prior convictions for committing or attempting an offense under the section is guilty of the 5-year felony, and a person who commits the $1,000 to under $20,000 offense and has two or more is guilty of the 10-year felony. For the lowest tiers, a prior conviction under the section or a matching local ordinance makes the 93-day misdemeanor a 1-year misdemeanor. MCL 750.377a(1)(a)(ii), (b)(ii), (c)(ii). For the felony enhancements, a prior conviction does not include a conviction for a violation of the lowest tiers. MCL 750.377a(1)(a)(ii), (b)(ii).

The prosecutor who wants an enhanced sentence on a prior conviction must list it on the complaint and information. The judge, without a jury, decides whether it exists at sentencing or at a separate hearing, using such evidence as the judgment of conviction, a transcript, the presentence report or the defendant’s own statement. A prior conviction used this way cannot be used again to enhance the sentence under the habitual offender statutes. MCL 750.377a(3), (4). I check every prior for whether it is a conviction under this section, whether it is one the enhancement excludes and whether the paperwork is complete.

Second, aggregation. The amounts of destruction or injury in separate incidents pursuant to a scheme or course of conduct within any 12-month period may be added together to find the total. MCL 750.377a(2). That can turn several small incidents into one felony charge. Whether the incidents were part of a scheme or course of conduct is a fact the prosecutor has to establish, and I test it.

Whose property it is

The statute reaches the personal property of another person, and the building statute reaches another person’s house, barn or other building. MCL 750.377a(1); MCL 750.380(1). Property that is solely yours is outside both. The hard cases involve shared items: things bought together, property divided in a breakup, a roommate’s belongings, or a car paid for by one person and titled to another. The statute does not say what happens when ownership is shared or disputed. The questions I ask are who bought it and when, whose name is on any title or receipt, who used and kept it, what any court order or written agreement says and what you honestly believed. A good-faith belief about ownership goes to the intent element.

The choice between the two statutes also matters. A hole in a wall, a kicked-in door, a broken window or damage to a rental unit is ordinarily charged under the building statute. Furniture, a phone or a vehicle is personal property. Both use the same tiers, so the choice usually changes the label more than the penalty, but I check that the facts fit the statute that was charged.

When the owner is a partner, an ex or a roommate

Separate subdivisions apply when you and the owner are spouses or former spouses, have or have had a dating relationship, have or have had a child in common, or are residents or former residents of the same household. MCL 750.377a(1)(d), (f). The statute defines a dating relationship as frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affectional involvement, and says it does not include a casual relationship or an ordinary fraternization between two individuals in a business or social context. MCL 750.377a(5).

For damage under $1,000, the penalty ranges in those subdivisions match the ordinary tiers: up to 1 year for $200 to under $1,000, and up to 93 days for under $200. Damage of $1,000 or more falls under the general felony tiers either way. Because the ranges are the same, I look at what the relationship allegation adds, including how a conviction under subdivision (f) is later counted as a prior. A charge arising from an argument at home can also bring a no-contact bond condition or a protective order, and I advise on those at the first meeting, because a violation creates a new problem.

Anger, accident and intoxication

Anger by itself is not a defense when the act was deliberate. Throwing a phone or kicking in a door in a heated argument is often a deliberate act, and the intent can be inferred from it. An accident is different, because the crime requires an intent to damage or destroy. People v. Culp, 108 Mich. App. 452, 458 (1981).

Intoxication is not a defense either. Under MCL 768.37(1), it is not a defense to any crime that the defendant was under the influence of or impaired by a voluntarily and knowingly consumed alcoholic liquor, drug or other substance. Subsection (2) allows one narrow affirmative defense to a specific intent crime, which the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence: that the defendant voluntarily consumed a legally obtained and properly used medication or other substance and did not know and reasonably should not have known that intoxication or impairment would result. The 1981 decision in Culp allowed an intoxication instruction, but it predates this 2002 statute, so I do not rely on that part of it.

Restitution and paying for the damage

Paying for the damage does not erase the charge. Nothing in the property-damage statutes makes payment a defense or requires dismissal. Payment or an arrangement to pay can matter to the prosecutor deciding how to resolve the case and to the judge at sentencing, but those are discretionary decisions, and I do not predict them.

Restitution is a separate subject. When sentencing a defendant convicted of a crime, the court shall order full restitution to any victim of the course of conduct that gave rise to the conviction, and this applies to a case resolved by a delayed sentence, deferred judgment of guilt or another disposition that is not an acquittal or unconditional dismissal. MCL 780.766(2). For property damage, the order requires the defendant to return the property or, if that is impossible, impractical or inadequate, to pay the greater of the fair market value on the date of the damage or on the date of sentencing, less the value of any part returned. MCL 780.766(3). Because restitution follows a conviction, I advise before you agree to any figure, in writing or otherwise, since a number set by the owner may be higher than the fair market value of repair or replacement.

I also advise against contacting the owner directly once charges are filed. Contact can violate a bond condition or be described as pressure on a witness. Any payment is better made through counsel with a written record of what it covers.

Defenses and issues I look at

• Identity. I test how the accusation was made and what actually puts you at the scene: video, a witness who saw it, a neighbor who assumed.
• Intent. An accident, carelessness or a good-faith belief about ownership does not meet the specific intent element.
• Ownership. I examine whether the item really belonged to someone else, especially in shared homes, breakups and roommate disputes.
• The amount. I request the estimates, invoices and photographs and test whether the figure is a reasonable repair or replacement cost for the damage done.
• The statute charged. I check whether the facts fit the personal-property statute, the building statute or the police and fire property statute.
• Priors and aggregation. I check every prior conviction relied on and whether separate incidents were really a scheme or course of conduct.
• Statements. I review what you told police at the scene, in a text or on a recorded call, and how the police obtained it.

Ways a malicious destruction case may end without a trial

None of these is automatic. Each depends on the evidence, the prosecutor and the judge.

Dismissal or a reduced charge at the preliminary examination. In a felony case, if the magistrate decides that no felony was committed or that there is no probable cause, the magistrate must discharge the defendant or reduce the charge to a non-felony. MCL 766.13. The magistrate must bind the defendant over if the evidence supports probable cause on each element, so I focus on identity, intent and the amount.

A plea to a lower tier. Because the dollar amount sets the tier, the figure you plead to matters as much as the label. A reduction from the $1,000 line to a misdemeanor tier changes the maximum from 5 years to 1 year. The court may not accept a plea to an offense other than the one charged without the prosecutor’s consent. MCR 6.301(D).

Dismissal by the prosecutor. A prosecutor may dismiss after an identification or an estimate falls apart. I do not count on it.

How I handle a malicious destruction case

1. Stop the statements. I tell you and your family not to discuss the case with police, the owner or anyone on social media.
2. Read the charge. I identify the statute and subsection, the amount alleged, any prior conviction relied on and any relationship allegation.
3. Handle bond and contact. I make sure you understand any no-contact condition and prepare the information the court will ask about.
4. Get the evidence. I request the police reports, photographs, video, 911 recordings, estimates, invoices and messages.
5. Challenge the number. I get an independent look at the damage and test the repair or replacement figure.
6. Explain every offer. I set out what a plea gives, what it costs, what restitution looks like and what the trial risk is. The decision is yours.
7. Prepare for trial. If the case should be tried, I prepare it that way.

What I need from you

Bring the charging papers, the bond order and every court notice. Write down what happened, who was there and every conversation with police or the owner, with dates. Gather photographs of the item before and after, receipts, title papers, messages about who owns what, and the names of witnesses. If you already have a repair estimate or invoice, bring it. Do not contact the owner, do not post about the case and do not delete anything.

Where your Kent County case will be heard

I represent clients charged in Grand Rapids, Kentwood, Grandville, Wyoming and across Kent County. A felony begins in district court with an arraignment and, if the case continues, a preliminary examination. MCL 600.8311(c), (e). Michigan law sets the Kent County district courts by municipality. The 61st District Court serves the city of Grand Rapids, the 59th serves the cities of Grandville and Walker, the 62A serves the city of Wyoming and the 62B serves the city of Kentwood. MCL 600.8128a; MCL 600.8130(1)-(3). The 63rd District Court serves the rest of Kent County, which includes the cities of Rockford, Lowell, Cedar Springs and East Grand Rapids and the surrounding townships. MCL 600.8130(4). If the magistrate binds the case over, the felony is arraigned in the circuit court, which for Kent County is the 17th Judicial Circuit. MCL 766.13; MCL 600.8311(f); MCL 600.518.

Why people hire me for a Michigan malicious destruction matter

You work directly with me, the lawyer handling your case. I tell you where the prosecutor’s case is strong and where it is thin, what the charge and each offer mean in months and years, and what the law does not allow me to promise. I do not promise outcomes. I build the case the facts support, and then we decide together how to proceed.

My fee depends on the charges, how complicated the case is and how far it is likely to go. We talk about the fee at the consultation, before you decide whether to hire me.

Related Michigan pages

• Grand Rapids criminal defense lawyer
• Larceny and embezzlement
• Stolen property and auto theft
• Retail fraud
• Robbery, carjacking and arson
• Bad checks and benefit fraud

Reviewed by Mitchell S. Bisson, October 28, 2026.

I defend people charged with malicious destruction of property in Kent County and West Michigan. Contact me 24/7 by phone or email. Your Rights, My Fight! Call for a free initial consultation.

Big-Firm Power. Street-Level Grit.

Law Offices of Mitchell S. Bisson, 2828 Kraft Ave SE, Suite 295, Grand Rapids, MI 49512, serving Kent County and West Michigan.

MBisson@BissonLegal.com

This page provides general information about Michigan law and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change and every case turns on its own facts. Consult a licensed attorney about your specific situation.