Abstract
This is an imagined re-creation of what happened in the appellate case of People v. Person. n2 It is an imagined recitation of the facts because the only written opinion in the case did not discuss the factual situation that gave rise to the case. n3 On the face of the opinion, one would not know it was a case of wife abuse; it appears to concern only the proper application of the law of criminal mischief involving the destruction of personal property. Only by reading between the lines, noticing indications that the defendant and the victim are married, references to "physical injury," "unlawful imprisonment" and the damage to personal property n4 would one have any idea that this was violence against a spouse. In Person, the court concluded that there can be no criminal mischief where the defendant holds an equitable interest in the property at issue and relied on marital status to establish such an interest. It did not even mention the physical abuse in the same set of facts for which the defendant was charged with criminal mischief, because it did not find it relevant. For this court, the salient consideration was whether the defendant could claim an interest in the property in question. By the court's reasoning, because the defendant was married to the alleged property owner, he held an equitable interest in her property and could not be found guilty of criminal mischief. This means that, because of marital status, a husband could not be ...