Opinion ID: 1769274
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Dual Counts of Criminal Mischief.

Text: The superseding indictment charged Terry with one count of first-degree criminal mischief for the damage he inflicted upon the mausoleum and a separate count of first-degree criminal mischief for the damage he inflicted upon the casket. Terry contends that he should have been subject to conviction for only one count of criminal mischief because the damage he inflicted to the mausoleum and to the casket was part of the same course of conduct. We disagree. Testimony at trial showed that the damage to the mausoleum exceeded $1,000 and that the damage to the casket exceeded $1,000. So there is no question that Terry's conduct met the $1,000 threshold as to both the casket and the mausoleum. Rather, the question is whether Terry may be separately punished for damaging the mausoleum and the casket. Terry's argument centers around KRS 505.020(1)(c), which provides that a defendant may not be convicted of more than one offense that occurred during a single course of conduct if [t]he offense is designed to prohibit a continuing course of conduct. . . . We do not find that first-degree criminal mischief is designed to prevent a continuing course of conduct. Rather, the offense of first-degree criminal mischief is completed once the perpetrator, without the authority to do so, intentionally or wantonly defaces, destroys or damages any property causing pecuniary loss of $1,000 or more. [17] No continuing course of conduct is necessary to commit that offense. Criminal mischief is, thus, unlike the most obvious offense involving a continuing course of conduct  nonsupport of a dependent. Each missed support payment could, theoretically, constitute a new offense were it not for the general prohibition of KRS 505.020(1)(c) against multiple punishments for offenses that constitute a continuing course of conduct. [18] Terry forced open the mausoleum thereby damaging it in excess of $1,000. He removed the casket from the mausoleum. He then pried the casket open, causing over $1,000 in damage to it. So he had a sufficient period of time between forcing open the mausoleum and prying open the casket to reflect on his conduct and formulate intent to commit another act. [19] Indeed, Terry committed two distinct criminal acts of damage: one to the mausoleum and one to the casket. Those separate acts can be separately punished. After all, if we accepted Terry's argument, he would have had little incentive to refrain from damaging the casket once he had already damaged the mausoleum. We reject Terry's argument that he was subject to being convicted of only one count of first-degree criminal mischief.