The Washington State Court of Appeals has upheld a Walla Walla man’s felony conviction for malicious mischief, concluding that the replacement cost of destroyed electronics provides a legally acceptable basis for calculating damages.
In an opinion released May 7, Division III ruled unanimously to affirm the conviction of Sylvester Cantu Lopez Jr., finding that the estimated cost to replace two key devices met the statutory threshold for elevating the offense to a felony.
The matter first reached Walla Walla County Superior Court before Judge Brandon L. Johnson, centering on whether the projected replacement value of a damaged iPhone and Ring doorbell sufficed to meet the $750 minimum required for second-degree malicious mischief—especially as the incident involved an intimate partner.
The underlying event unfolded on August 7, 2022, when Lopez visited his former partner’s residence in Walla Walla. Court documents describe an emotional confrontation during which he tossed her iPhone and a Ring camera onto the ground, causing both to shatter. As he left, he also hurled several rocks at the home, breaking a window.
Walla Walla County prosecutors filed charges under RCW 9A.48.100, accusing Lopez of second-degree malicious mischief and specifying that the property damage occurred in the context of a domestic relationship.
Lopez initially entered into a Stipulated Order of Continuance with prosecutors, which would have downgraded the charge to third-degree malicious mischief upon successful completion of set conditions. However, district court probation officials submitted multiple non-compliance reports in 2023, citing four new criminal cases against Lopez and his failure to complete a chemical dependency evaluation.
Based on these developments, prosecutors sought revocation of the agreement. In September 2024, Judge Johnson determined that sufficient cause existed to rescind the order and moved forward with a factual hearing.
At the hearing, the court relied on the probable cause affidavit and investigator’s notes, which included the victim’s assessment that the iPhone replacement cost $800 and the Ring camera cost $200. Together, those figures surpassed the $750 benchmark for a felony conviction. Although the window repair—estimated at $500—was not formally incorporated into the final damage total, it was referenced during proceedings.
On appeal, Lopez’s attorneys, Kyle Bryce Berti and Catherine C. Clark, challenged the evidentiary foundation for the damages award. They maintained that reliance solely on replacement cost did not fully satisfy the legal definition of “diminution in value,” the metric prescribed by statute for assessing property damage.
The appellate court disagreed. Judge John Cooney, authoring the opinion for the three-judge panel, clarified that when an item is so severely damaged that repair is impractical or impossible, replacement cost serves as a reliable proxy for total value loss.
“Once an item reaches a point where restoring it to its prior state reasonably requires full substitution, the replacement value accurately reflects the amount needed to reinstate its utility and market worth,” Cooney stated.
The ruling affirms that, in cases of total loss, stating the replacement cost adequately supports a finding of damages under Washington’s malicious mischief statute.
Journalists and editors are advised to link back to the original source using its standard web address when redistributing the content on the internet. This practice ensures that search engines properly attribute the initial publication. Additionally, the material should not be used as a primary tool for generating sales or advertising revenue. For inquiries or to access the article’s code for direct copying, interested parties should reach out to the editorial team.