## Facts

- Karla Kay Kahanic and her husband were near the end of dissolution proceedings, and a Mercedes-Benz automobile remained community property.
- Kahanic drove her silver Corvette near a residence where her husband was visiting another woman, failed to gain entry, and later obtained a bottle of beer.
- A car like Kahanic’s was later seen near the same residence where the community-property Mercedes was parked.
- A beer bottle was thrown from the Corvette and broke the Mercedes’s rear window.
- Kahanic was arrested, charged with misdemeanor vandalism under California Penal Code § 594(b)(3), convicted, and placed on probation.
- Her defense was that she could not “vandalize” community property because it was her own property.

## Issues

1. Whether a spouse may be convicted of vandalism under Penal Code § 594 for damaging community personal property, given the statute’s requirement that the property be “not his own.”
2. Whether “not his own” in Penal Code § 594 excludes property in which the defendant holds a partial or shared ownership interest.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the misdemeanor vandalism conviction.
- The court held that community property status did not preclude application of Penal Code § 594.
- The court interpreted “property not his own” to include property not exclusively owned by the defendant, even if the defendant has a community interest.
- The husband’s concurrent community property interest was a distinct, legally protected interest sufficient to satisfy the statute’s “not his own” element.
- Policy concerns that marital disputes may be better resolved in family court did not justify creating a spousal exemption from the statute.

## Legal Principles

- For Penal Code § 594, “property not his own” includes property that is not the defendant’s exclusive property; co-ownership does not bar liability.
- Criminal property-protection statutes may be violated even when the defendant has a partial or shared interest, so long as another person has a separate property or possessory interest adversely affected.
- Community property rights are concurrent; one spouse’s equal interest does not include a right to substantially damage the property to the detriment of the other spouse’s interest.
- Legislative retention of the phrase “not his own” through multiple amendments supports reading the statute without a spousal/community-property exemption.

## Conclusion

A spouse may be convicted of vandalism under California Penal Code § 594 for damaging community personal property because such property is not exclusively the defendant’s own and includes the other spouse’s legally protected co-ownership interest.


People v. Kahanic, 241 Cal. Rptr. 722 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987)