Daño criminal a la propiedad en segundo grado en Georgia

Explicación Simple

Si rompes algo que no es tuyo y cuesta más de $500, puedes tener problemas con la ley. Es como si alguien te demandara por romper su ventana, y tú tuviste que pagar por ello.

Es como si prestaras tu bicicleta a un amigo y él la devuelve con una rueda rota. Si la reparación cuesta más de $500, podrías pedirle que te compense.

Ejemplo Práctico

Imagina que Juan está en una pelea y rompe la ventana del coche de su vecino, Carlos. Carlos dice que arreglar la ventana le costará $600. Si Juan es acusado de daño criminal, puede enfrentar cargos porque el costo de la reparación supera los $500.

Texto Original del Estatuto (Inglés)

was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's conviction for criminal damage to property in the second degree as the state presented evidence from the victim that the damage to the victim's car was a shot-out window and that the cost to get the car fixed exceeded $500 as well as a photograph showing the damaged window. Motes v. State, 352 Ga. App. 707 , 834 S.E.2d 565 (2019). Accomplice testimony sufficiently corroborated. - Accomplice's testimony implicating the defendant was corroborated by the hat found at the scene of the crime containing the defendant's DNA and, thus, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of burglary and criminal damage to property in the second degree. Dunlap v. State, 351 Ga. App. 685 , 832 S.E.2d 667 (2019). Insufficient evidence of property value. - Defendant was entitled to reversal of a conviction for criminal damage to property in the second degree because there was no competent evidence from which the jury could determine that the value of the damage for which the defendant was responsible was in excess of $500, an essential element of the offense. Lenoir v. State, 322 Ga. App. 583 , 745 S.E.2d 824 (2013). State failed to prove that the defendant caused at least $500 of damage to a Jeep as charged in the indictment because the victim's testimony about the damage discussed the cost as to the Jeep and another vehicle and, thus, failed to prove that the defendant committed