UNPUBLISHED See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d)
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, J. Patrick Hanley, Judge. Trial Court No. 3AN-19-05712 CR
Cynthia A. Franklin, Carlson Law, Anchorage, for the Appellant.
Julia N. Hosmer, Assistant Municipal Prosecutor, and Patrick N. Bergt, Municipal Attorney, Anchorage, for the Appellee.
Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Harbison and Terrell, Judges.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION
Karl Marx Thomas was convicted of one count of criminal mischief for intentionally kicking in his ex-girlfriend's front door and causing more than $50 in damage. Thomas raises two issues on appeal.
Anchorage Municipal Code (AMC) 08.20.010(A)(1).
First, Thomas contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict him of intentionally causing more than $50 of damage to property. When we 1 review a claim of insufficient evidence, we must view the evidence (and all reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence) in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict. Viewing the evidence in that light, we then determine whether a fair-minded juror could find that the government met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Iyapana v. State, 284 P.3d 841, 848-49 (Alaska App. 2012).
Id.
With respect to Thomas's intent to cause damage, it is usually reasonable for a jury to infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of the acts they knowingly commit. Here, Thomas's ex-girlfriend testified that Thomas kicked in the door and caused significant damage. The evidence was therefore sufficient to support an inference that Thomas intended to damage the door.
Kangas v. State, 463 P.3d 189, 192-93 (Alaska App. 2020).
Regarding the amount of damage, Thomas's ex-girlfriend testified that the door did not shut properly even after minor repairs and that she ultimately had to spend over $3, 000 to replace the entire door once it began to get cold outside. This evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict that Thomas caused more than $50 worth of damage.
Second, Thomas argues that the district court erred by including a probation condition that he complete a domestic violence intervention program. We disagree. Thomas's ex-girlfriend testified that the incident arose because Thomas became angry after she ended her relationship with him. The court found that Thomas "basically refused to accept that [the relationship was over], and as a result of that, kicked the door in." The record supports the court's determination that Thomas would benefit from a domestic violence intervention program.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2