As we discussed in a previous article, Washington is a community property state.  This means that, in this state, most property that a couple acquires during their marriage is considered to be the property of both spouses.  So any given piece of property, from a car to a condo, that a married person buys is generally considered to be equally owned by both spouses.  The issue of whether property is community or separate is a very important consideration for the courts when a couple divorces, and their property needs to be divided between the two soon-to-be exes.

While community property is primarily of concern to courts in domestic and other civil court matters, the issue of community property occasionally arises in criminal matters.  Here’s one example.

In December of 1998, Angel Coria and his wife went out for dinner at a restaurant in Tacoma.  During their dinner, Mr. Coria believed that the wait staff at the restaurant were flirting with his wife.  Mr. Coria became enraged, and the couple got into a fight while driving home after dinner.  During this argument, Mr. Coria assaulted his wife, and she was injured. Once they returned home, Mrs. Coria rushed into the house and called the police.  Mr. Coria sped away in his truck.  The police arrived at the Coria’s house, an ambulance was called for Mrs. Coria, but Mr. Coria was nowhere to be found.

Around midnight, Mrs. Coria returned home from the hospital.  Within less than two hours, she heard banging sounds in the garage and fled the house.  She called the police from a neighbor’s house and reported that he believed her husband was back.

When the police officers arrived at the Coria’s house, it was a disaster.  A mirror was broken, the TV was knocked over, the microwave was torn from the wall.  The couple’s pet cockatiel was dead, its cage smashed.  The garage door had been ripped off its rollers, and a door frame and lock had been damaged.  The linoleum tiles in the kitchen were slashed.   The couple’s young daughter pointed to the broken mirror and said “Daddy broke.”  It was later determined that $555.00 worth of the couple’s property was damaged or destroyed.

Mr. Coria was later charged with assault of his wife, and with malicious mischief for damaging the couple’s property.  Malicious mischief is a felony, which applies when a person “knowingly and maliciously causes physical damage to property of another exceeding $250.”  (See RCW 9A.48.080).  The husband appealed, and claimed that he could not have damaged “the property of another” because he had damaged community property, which was just as much his property as it was his wife’s property.  In other words, Mr. Coria argued that because he owned the property that he damaged and destroyed, he hadn’t committed malicious mischief.  The Court of Appeals agreed wtih him, and the case was sent to the Washington Supreme Court for review.

So, did the Supreme Court agree that Mr. Coria could not be found guilty of destroying what property owned by both he and his wife?

a). Yes, the court found that the husband did not commit malicious mischief because he destroyed property owned equally by he and his wife, and therefore he had not destroyed the property of another.

b). No, because the wife is just as much at the owner of the destroyed property as the husband, the destroyed property was the property of another.

Answer: B. See State v. Coria, 146 Wn. 2d 631. The Supreme Court ruled that the property destroyed by Mr. Coria was indeed the property of another because Mrs. Coria was a co-owner.  Even though Mr. Coria shared an ownership interest in the property, he could not take it upon himself to destroy it without penalty.  His ownership rights could not trump those of his wife, and his destruction of their co-owned property interfered with Mrs. Coria’s ownership rights.  Thus, Mr. Coria was ultimately found guilty of of malicious mischief.

So, given that community property is generally considered to be owned by spouses on a 50-50 basis, we might think that Mr. Coria should only be liable for half of the damages – after all, he owned one half of all the damaged and destroyed stuff  and he’s free to do whatever he wants with his half – right?

Well, the court did not really answer this question for two reasons. First, Mr. Coria did not raise this theory as a defense. Secondly, even if this theory could be used as a defense, it would not have saved Mr. Coria. The property that Mr. Coria destroyed was valued at $555.00.  Even if he was liable for only half of the value of the damaged property, he still damaged property over $250.00, making him guilty of malicious mischief anyway.