Court Opinion

ID: 9910326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-15 15:05:01.929734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:17.566465
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: DECEMBER 8, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                          TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                           Court of Appeals
                              NO. 2022-CA-1356-MR

MICHAEL MILLS                                                         APPELLANT

                  APPEAL FROM PIKE CIRCUIT COURT
v.              HONORABLE HOWARD KEITH HALL, JUDGE
                       ACTION NO. 21-CR-00568

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                                APPELLEE

                                    OPINION
                                   AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: CETRULO, COMBS, AND EASTON, JUDGES.

CETRULO, JUDGE: Appellant Michael Mills (“Michael”) appeals the Pike

Circuit Court’s denial of his motion for directed verdict on his criminal mischief

charge. Upon review, we affirm the circuit court.

                 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

             Michael’s now ex-wife, Melissa Mills (“Melissa”), filed for divorce in

March 2021. Additionally, at that time, Melissa filed a motion for an emergency

protective order (“EPO”) against Michael, which was granted. The family court
overseeing the divorce converted the EPO to a domestic violence order (“DVO”)

in May 2021 and instructed Michael to stay 500 feet away from Melissa and not to

damage any property of the parties. Further, the family court ordered Michael to

vacate the marital home within seven days, as Melissa was to inhabit the home

with their children throughout the divorce proceedings.

             A few days later, on May 30, 2021, Michael informed Melissa that he

had vacated the home, and the next day, Melissa went to the home and changed the

locks. Two days later, Melissa returned to the home to find the front door open,

and the back door busted. Melissa called the police, and when they arrived, they

found Michael inside the home, asleep on the couch with a baseball bat near him.

Melissa walked through the home with the officer and noticed substantial damage

that was not there previously; the glass back door had been shattered, along with

multiple televisions, the glass-top stove, dishwasher, footboard, coffee table,

cabinets, and various decorative items. There were numerous holes in the walls,

and “Melissa is a bitch” was written on the dining room table. Michael told the

police that he did not cause the damage; he claimed the house had already been

damaged when he arrived, and that he had planned to call the police, but he fell

asleep on the couch before he could.

             Following those events, Michael was indicted, and a jury convicted

him of second-degree burglary, first-degree criminal mischief, and violation of the

                                         -2-
DVO issued against him. During trial, the officer who arrested Michael testified,

along with Melissa, Michael, Melissa’s mother, and the Pike County Deputy Clerk.

The officer testified to the damage and Michael’s presence in the home. Melissa

and her mother testified that most1 of the property was not damaged when they

went to the house to change the locks two days before the incident. The deputy

clerk testified regarding the certification of the protective order the family court

had entered in late-May 2021 that prohibited the parties from destroying their

marital property.

               Michael testified that he did not cause most of the damage and any

that he had caused had been done months before Melissa filed for divorce. He

further testified that, although the locks had been changed, he did not kick in the

front door or break the back door; he claimed those doors were already open and

broken when he got there, so he simply walked in. Michael noticed the shattered

door and scattered items but sat down on the couch and fell asleep. Michael

acknowledged that he had attended the family court hearing in May 2021 in which

the court ordered that no one was to destroy marital property.

               After the Commonwealth’s case-in-chief, Michael moved, in pertinent

part, for a directed verdict on the criminal mischief charge, arguing that the

1
 There was testimony that a rug, cabinet, and parts of the stove top had been damaged when
Melissa went to the house to change the locks, but the majority of the destruction occurred after
Melissa changed the locks.

                                               -3-
property was marital; therefore, he had a partial property interest in it and could not

have destroyed the “property of another.” However, the circuit court noted that the

statute did not require damage to the “property of another” to be guilty of criminal

mischief. Instead, the statute states, there must be “damage of any property.”

Therefore, the circuit court denied the motion. Michael then renewed the motion

after the Commonwealth’s rebuttal and, again, the circuit court denied it because it

found the Commonwealth had presented evidence on each element. Michael now

appeals the circuit court’s denial of his motion for directed verdict on the criminal

mischief charge.

                            STANDARD OF REVIEW

             This Court reviews the denial of a motion for directed verdict under

an “any rational juror” standard, i.e., we must determine whether any rational juror

could have found all the elements of the crime, “viewing the evidence in the light

most favorable to the Commonwealth[.]” Quisenberry v. Commonwealth, 336

S.W.3d 19, 35 (Ky. 2011) (citing Commonwealth v. Benham, 816 S.W.2d 186, 187

(Ky. 1991) (“On appellate review, the test of a directed verdict is, if under the

evidence as a whole, it would be clearly unreasonable for a jury to find guilt[.]”)).

“For the purpose of ruling on the motion, the trial court must assume that the

evidence for the Commonwealth is true, but reserving to the jury questions as to

                                         -4-
the credibility and weight to be given to such testimony.” Benham, 816 S.W.2d at

187.

                                        ANALYSIS

              Kentucky Revised Statute (“KRS”) 512.020(1)(a) provides that

              [a] person is guilty of criminal mischief in the first degree
              when, having no right to do so or any reasonable ground
              to believe that he or she has such right, he or she
              intentionally or wantonly: [d]efaces, destroys, or damages
              any property causing pecuniary loss of one thousand
              dollars [] or more[.]

              While Michael concedes that the property was damaged, he argues

that he had the right to damage that property because most of it was marital

property.2 Specifically, Michael argues that because the divorce was not final at

the time of the damage, the property was presumed to be owned by both parties.

Therefore, Michael argues, he still owned the damaged property and had a right to

destroy it.

              Michael urges this Court to address a novel issue in Kentucky:

whether property one member of a married couple destroyed – mid-divorce – can

be used to prove criminal mischief. However, this Court need not address that

issue because despite any question as to who “owned” the property, Michael had

2
  Michael notes that the sound system that was damaged was not marital property, as it belonged
to his son.

                                              -5-
no right or reasonable ground to believe he had the right to destroy it.3 Indeed, the

family court explicitly ordered that neither party had the right to destroy the

property. As established during trial, Michael was present when the family court

entered the order prohibiting destruction of marital property, and he does not

dispute the nature of the order. Michael, therefore, had knowledge that the family

court forbade him from destroying marital property.

               In his reply brief, Michael claims that such evidence proved only that

he violated the DVO, not that he committed criminal mischief. We disagree. The

DVO and its prohibition of property destruction were evidence that Michael did

not have the right or a reasonable belief that he had the right to destroy the marital

property. This evidence, taken in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth,

could have proved to a rational juror that Michael did not have the right or

reasonable belief that he had the right to destroy the marital property. See

Quisenberry, 336 S.W.3d at 35 (citation omitted). Michael’s conviction for

violating the DVO does not change that.

               Therefore, under the clear language of the statute, the Commonwealth

presented evidence that Michael destroyed property that he did not have the right

3
  Additionally, Michael briefly argued that, according to the rule of lenity, the legislature should
have explicitly stated in KRS 512.020 that defendants can be criminally charged for destroying
property in which the defendant has an equitable ownership interest, if that is what the legislature
intended. However, as discussed, this Court does not reach that issue and therefore need not
address the lenity argument.

                                                -6-
to destroy, nor that he had a reasonable ground to believe that he had the right to

destroy the property. As such, there was substantial evidence for a rational juror to

find that the Commonwealth had established all the elements of KRS

512.020(1)(a). See Quisenberry, 336 S.W.3d at 34-35. The circuit court did not

err when it denied Michael’s motion for directed verdict.

                                  CONCLUSION

             For the foregoing reasons, the Pike Circuit Court did not err when it

denied Michael’s motion for directed verdict. As such, we AFFIRM the circuit

court’s order.

             ALL CONCUR.

 BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                     BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

 Jared Travis Bewley                       Daniel Cameron
 Frankfort, Kentucky                       Attorney General of Kentucky

                                           J. Grant Burdette
                                           Assistant Attorney General
                                           Frankfort, Kentucky

                                         -7-