Former section penalizing persons who willfully cut down or destroyed trees referred to severing things attached to the freehold as part thereof, such as produce of the soil, timber, structures or fixtures and not to the tearing down of a temporary rent placard or notice. Whipple v. Gorsuch, 82 Ark. 252, 101 S.W. 735 (1907) (decision under prior law).

It was not necessary to show that the trespasser appropriated the timber alleged to be stolen; it was sufficient if the proof showed that he entered upon the land without lawful authority and willfully and knowingly cut down or destroyed standing or growing trees. Smith v. State, 127 Ark. 218, 191 S.W. 913 (1917) (decision under prior law).

The intent to convert trees cut down or destroyed to one's own use was not an element of the offense under the prior section imposing a penalty on anyone cutting or destroying trees. Davis v. State, 139 Ark. 175, 214 S.W. 6 (1919) (decision under prior law).

Evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the defendant was liable as an accomplice where she made a statement that “we got in the bad attitude mood and decided to key cars and bust plants and paint on cars,” even though the only person she ever identified as keying a vehicle or damaging plants was one of her companions and she never identified the cars that were damaged or made reference to a particular vehicle. Pack v. State, 73 Ark. App. 123, 41 S.W.3d 409 (2001).

Defendant's conviction for criminal mischief was supported by substantial evidence where the post office was unquestionably damaged as the doors and locks had been riddled with bullets and the shell casings found had been fired from a rifle that was in defendant's possession both before and after the incident and witness testimony placed defendant inside the post office on the night the damage occurred. McConnell v. State, - Ark. App. -, - S.W.3d -, 2003 Ark. App. LEXIS 888 (Dec. 10, 2003).

Criminal mischief in the second degree is a lesser-included offense of criminal mischief in the first degree; the distinction between the two offenses is based upon grades of intent or degrees of culpability. McGill v. State, 60 Ark. App. 246, 962 S.W.2d 382 (1998).

Conviction for criminal mischief in the first degree reduced to criminal mischief in the second degree after appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence, pursuant to § 16-67-325. McGill v. State, 60 Ark. App. 246, 962 S.W.2d 382 (1998).

There was probable cause to arrest the defendant for criminal mischief where the defendant's brother admitted pouring formaldehyde on the victim's couch, the defendant was present at the time of the incident, and the formaldehyde belonged to the defendant. Hines v. State, 289 Ark. 50, 709 S.W.2d 65 (1986).

An indictment for cutting down trees and destroying and carrying away the timber was not defective by alleging the property as belonging to the estate of one deceased. Boarman v. State, 66 Ark. 65, 48 S.W. 899 (1898) (decision under prior law).

Evidence was sufficient to sustain a first-degree criminal mischief conviction where defendant used a bulldozer to make roads throughout the owner's property, logged the entire 300 acres of its timber, and the jury was not obligated to believe that defendant was acting under what he believed was the owner's consent. Jester v. State, - Ark. -, - S.W.3d -, 2006 Ark. LEXIS 448 (Sept. 21, 2006).

In a criminal mischief case, the court properly ordered defendant to pay $180,000 in restitution as the land owner estimated his timber loss to be about $180,000 in his complaint that he filed with the Arkansas Forestry Commission, which was introduced into evidence at trial; further, his expert estimated that the remaining property value was worth $150,000, and defendant himself offered the owner $180,000 for the property in hopes to settle the dispute. Jester v. State, - Ark. -, - S.W.3d -, 2006 Ark. LEXIS 448 (Sept. 21, 2006).

In a prosecution for criminal mischief in the first degree, it is not enough to show merely that the property was damaged or destroyed, for one essential element of this crime is that the damage was willfully caused and not accidental. Bray v. State, 12 Ark. App. 53, 670 S.W.2d 822 (1984).

Teenager who drove another's car without permission and accidentally totaled it was acting recklessly, but did not purposefully damage the car; as a consequence, he committed criminal mischief in the second degree rather than in the first degree. McGill v. State, 60 Ark. App. 246, 962 S.W.2d 382 (1998).

Cited: Hawksley v. State, 276 Ark. 504, 637 S.W.2d 573 (1982); Ellis v. State, 4 Ark. App. 201, 628 S.W.2d 871 (1982); Garrison v. State, 13 Ark. App. 245, 682 S.W.2d 772 (1985); State v. Murphy, 315 Ark. 68, 864 S.W.2d 842 (Ark. 1993).