## Facts

- James P. Nastoff and two other individuals cut wood in a forested area in Valley County, Idaho, for about two days.
- On August 9, 1991, a timber fire broke out near Paddy Flat Summit and ultimately burned about five acres of state and private land.
- During fire-suppression operations, a chainsaw was found roughly twenty yards from the asserted point of origin of the fire.
- Before the chainsaw was noticed, it had been pushed an unknown distance and run over by a bulldozer.
- The chainsaw had been modified by removal of the spark arrester and by holes punched into the muffler cover; the modifications allegedly violated Idaho Code § 38-121 (operation of an engine without adequate protective equipment).
- Evidence indicated the modifications allowed the saw to emit carbon while idling.
- The State’s theory was that carbon emitted during the woodcutting smoldered and later ignited the fire.
- Nastoff admitted he owned and had been operating the chainsaw in the area; he also acknowledged awareness of the modifications, which had been made before he acquired the saw.
- The timber loss exceeded $1,000.
- The State did not contend that Nastoff intended to start a fire or intended to burn timber by using the chainsaw.
- Nastoff was indicted for felony malicious injury to property under Idaho Code § 18-7001.
- A jury found Nastoff guilty. The district court denied Nastoff’s motion for judgment of acquittal and entered an order withholding judgment on the guilty verdict. Nastoff appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence that Nastoff acted “maliciously,” as required by Idaho Code § 18-7001 (as informed by the definition of “malice” in Idaho Code § 18-101), when the State did not claim he intended to start the fire.
2. Whether proof that Nastoff knowingly operated a chainsaw modified in violation of Idaho Code § 38-121, without more, established the “intent to do a wrongful act” necessary to prove malice for malicious injury to property.

## Decision

- The Idaho Court of Appeals reversed the order withholding judgment based on the jury’s guilty verdict for felony malicious injury to property.
- The court held the State did not meet its burden to prove that Nastoff acted “maliciously” within the meaning of Idaho Code §§ 18-7001 and 18-101.
- Because the conviction failed for lack of proof of malice, the court did not need to resolve Nastoff’s argument about allegedly improper prosecutorial remarks in closing argument.

## Legal Principles

- Idaho Code § 18-7001 requires proof that the defendant “maliciously” injured or destroyed property not his own; when damages exceed $1,000, the offense is a felony.
- Under Idaho Code § 18-101, “malice” and “maliciously” mean either (1) a wish to vex, annoy, or injure another person, or (2) an intent to do a wrongful act.
- When the State does not claim the defendant acted to vex, annoy, or injure another, it must prove the “intent to do a wrongful act” form of malice to satisfy the statutory element for malicious injury to property.
- A regulatory or safety-law violation (such as operating equipment without required protective features), even if knowing, does not automatically establish the malice element for malicious injury to property; the State must still prove the statutorily required mental state tied to the charged property-damage offense.
- A conviction cannot stand when the evidence is insufficient for a rational factfinder to find the required mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt on an essential element of the offense.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed Nastoff’s felony conviction because, although the State presented evidence that he knowingly used a chainsaw modified in violation of a safety statute and advanced a theory that the saw’s emissions caused the fire, the proof did not establish the “malicious” state of mind required by Idaho Code § 18-7001 as defined by Idaho Code § 18-101.


State v. Nastoff, 862 P.2d 1089 (1993)