When a Nassau County District Court jury found Peter Suarez guilty of criminal mischief in the fourth degree for spray-painting on his neighbor's wall, he appealed to the Appellate Term, Second Department.
In addition to damaging another person's property without permission, prosecutors had to show that Peter caused some diminution in value or other "loss."
Apparently, there was no proof that the wall's value or usefulness had been diminished as a result of Peter's conduct, or that there had been any resulting damage--like cleaning or replacement costs. (In fact, the owner didn't even testify that she disliked what Peter had done.) As a result, the AT2 reversed the conviction and dismissed the criminal case.
Is that the Peter principle?
To view a copy of the Appellate Term's decision, please use this link: People v. Suarez