Lawrence N. Harris v. United States, 125 A.3d 704

Appellant Lawrence Harris, residing with his mother Trenice Harris and sister, damaged the front door of the home he shared with them.
Police were called multiple times; authorities could not compel him to leave due to lease rights, and he was escorted out on one occasion.
On the night of the incident, Harris allegedly kicked the locked front door after returning to the home without a key.
Photographs showed the door, frame, and hinges damaged; the trial court credited the tenant’s account and found excessive force.
Conviction: misdemeanor malicious destruction of property under D.C. Code § 22-303, based on malice or a substantial risk of harm caused by Harris’s actions.
The appellate court reversed the conviction, holding the evidence did not prove malice beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was sufficient malice to support destruction of property	Guzman: malice shown by awareness of harm. Harris intended to damage or was aware of substantial risk.	Harris: force was to re-enter, not to damage; lacked awareness of plain and strong likelihood of harm.	Insufficient evidence of malice; conviction reversed.
Whether the trial court erred in equating force used with entry vs. damage	Guzman-type standard requires conscious disregard of substantial risk.	Force used indicated intent to enter, not necessarily to damage.	Record does not show awareness of plain and strong likelihood of harm.
Did the evidence support a finding of intent to damage or willful and wanton conduct	Evidence showed damage and may imply intent to damage.	Record shows intent to enter; damage incidental.	Insufficient to prove either intent to damage or willful and wanton conduct.
Whether the trial court’s alternative finding of awareness of risk suffices	Guzman allows awareness of substantial risk to satisfy malice.	Evidence failed to show awareness of a plain and strong likelihood of harm.	Not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gonzalez v. United States, 859 A.2d 1065 (D.C.2004) (malice requires intentional harm or conscious disregard of substantial risk)
Guzman v. United States, 821 A.2d 895 (D.C.2003) (malice includes awareness of plain and strong likelihood of harm)
Thomas v. United States, 557 A.2d 1296 (D.C.1989) (definition of malice and intent under prior standard)
Rivas v. United States, 788 A.2d 125 (D.C.2001) (appellate review deferential but not de minimis for factual findings)
Jackson v. United States, 819 A.2d 963 (D.C.2003) (co-owner entry/destruction issue discussed; relevance to privilege not dispositive here)