Opinion ID: 1179483
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: QUAERE: Is Malicious Mischief a Lesser Included Offense of Attempted Burglary?

Text: [6] Under the Washington rule, a defendant is entitled to an instruction on a lesser included offense if two conditions are met. First, each of the elements of the lesser offense must be a necessary element of the offense charged. Second, the evidence in the case must support an inference that the lesser crime was committed. (Citations omitted.) State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443, 447-48, 548 P.2d 382 (1978). Here, the defendant contends that an instruction defining malicious mischief in the third degree should have been given to the jury. RCW 9A.48.090 defines malicious mischief in the third degree as: (1) A person is guilty of malicious mischief in the third degree if he knowingly and maliciously causes physical damage to the property of another, ... (2) Malicious mischief in the third degree is a gross misdemeanor if the damage to the property is in an amount exceeding fifty dollars; otherwise, it is a misdemeanor. The defendant is charged with attempted burglary. RCW 9A.52.030 defines burglary in the second degree as: (1) A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, he enters or remains unlawfully in a building other than a vehicle. Criminal attempt is defined by RCW 9A.28.020 as: (1) A person is guilty of an attempt to commit crime if, with intent to commit a specific crime, he does any act which is a substantial step toward the commission of that crime. (2) If the conduct in which a person engages otherwise constitutes an attempt to commit a crime, it is no defense to a prosecution of such attempt that the crime charged to have been attempted was, under the attendant circumstances, factually or legally impossible of commission. [7] Since the first condition of the test has not been met, we need not go any further in determining whether the second condition applies. Malicious mischief is not a lesser included offense of attempted burglary because one does not invariably cause physical damage while attempting a burglary. One who enters a premises through an unlocked door without permission may be committing burglary, but he has not physically damaged property. The prosecution should have charged the defendant in the alternative; by not doing so the prosecution's choice was to seek a conviction of attempted burglary or nothing.