Commonwealth v. Armand

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “Malice requires a showing that the defendant’s conduct was ‘motivated by “cruelty, hostility or revenge” ’ ” [citation omitted]
• conviction based on inference reversed where we concluded it was “speculative on the evidence” whether the defendant had the requisite mens rea
• “Wanton destruction differs substantially from wilful and malicious destruction in that wanton destruction requires only a showing that the actor’s conduct was indifferent to, or in disregard of, probable consequences”
• damage to motor vehicle insufficient to establish malicious destruction; “[t]he defendant’s principal goal in the venture appears from the evidence to have been to assist his three companions in getting both victims out of the car so they could be beaten, and to beat them”
• “wilful conduct” is intentional rather than accidental
• wilful conduct is intentional rather than accidental

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).