(a) A person is guilty of criminal mischief when the person intentionally or recklessly:
(1) Damages tangible property of another person; or
(2) Tampers with tangible property of another person so as to endanger person or property; or
(3) Tampers or makes connection with tangible property of a gas, electric, steam or waterworks corporation, telegraph or telephone corporation or other public utility, except that in any prosecution under this subsection it is an affirmative defense that the accused engaged in the conduct charged to constitute an offense for a lawful purpose.
(b) Criminal mischief is punished as follows:
(1) Criminal mischief is a class G felony if the actor intentionally causes pecuniary loss of $5,000 or more, or if the actor intentionally causes a substantial interruption or impairment of public communication, transportation, supply of water, gas or power, or other public service;
(2) Criminal mischief is a class A misdemeanor if the actor intentionally or recklessly causes pecuniary loss in excess of $1,000;
(3) Otherwise criminal mischief is an unclassified misdemeanor;
(4) If an actor commits an act of criminal mischief of any degree on or along a Delaware byway, as defined in §101 of Title 17, the court shall impose a minimum mandatory fine of at least $500.
(c) It is a defense that the defendant has a reasonable ground to believe that the defendant has a right to engage in the conduct set forth in subsection (a) of this section.
11 Del. C. 1953,
§
811;
58 Del. Laws, c. 497,
§
1;
60 Del. Laws, c. 590,
§
6;
65 Del. Laws, c. 497,
§
1;
67 Del. Laws, c. 130,
§
8;
70 Del. Laws, c. 186,
§
1;
70 Del. Laws, c. 211,
§
1;
77 Del. Laws, c. 133,
§
14;
77 Del. Laws, c. 350,
§
1;
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1966–2024 · leading case:
Heine v. Connelly, 644 F. Supp. 1508 (D. Del. 1986).
Heine v. Connelly, 644 F. Supp. 1508 (D. Del. 1986).
“Bilinski swore a complaint in the Justice of the Peace Court for New Castle County that charged Heine with criminal mischief in violation of 11 Del.C. § 811. The Court of Common Pleas assumed jurisdiction of the case.”
Osburn v. State, 224 A.2d 52 (Del. 1966).
“He plead guilty to the indictment; the sentencing judge ordered a presentence investigation and, subsequently, imposed the maximum sentence allowed by the statute, 11 Del.C. § 811. This Court has no power on appeal to reduce a sentence which is within the maximum penalty allowed…”
Dobrolenski v. State, 328 A.2d 447 (Del. 1974).
“HERRMANN, Chief Justice: The defendant appeals from her conviction upon charges of robbery (11 Del.C. § 811), possession of a deadly firearm during the commission of that felony (11 Del.”
Faircloth v. State, 522 A.2d 1268 (Del. 1987).
“§ 604) Two years imprisonment (consecutive) c) Criminal Mischief (0042) (11 Del. C. § 811) Six months imprisonment (consecutive) d) Driving While Under Influence (0044) (21 Del.”
Brown v. State, 239 A.2d 628 (Del. 1968).
“11 Del. C. § 811) provides: “Whoever feloniously takes from the person of another, by violence or by putting in fear, any money or other property or thing, which may be the subject of larceny, is guilty of robbery and a felony * * *» Defendants’ contention is based solely upon…”
Muhammad v. State (Del. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Muhammad argued that his convictions and sentences for two counts of Criminal Mischief violated the multiplicity doctrine because only one entity (the Wilmington Housing Authority) suffered damage and that same entity was the only entity to suffer the pecuniary loss element of…”
Mills v. State (Del. 2016).
“3 11 Del. C. § 811. to Mills’ appeal and affirm.”
State v. Sammons (Del. Super. Ct. 2016).
“§ 831; and one count of Criminal Mischief, 11 Del. C. § 811. Several other counts were either dismissed or the State entered a nolle prosequis.”
State v. Stevens (Del. Super. Ct. 2017).
“§ 512 and Criminal Mischief $1,000, 11 Del. C. § 811. The State entered a nolle prosequi on one count of Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony.”
State v. Cuffee (Del. Super. Ct. 2017).
“§ 512; and one count of Criminal Mischief $1,000, 11 Del. C. § 811. A presentence investigation was ordered by the Court.”
Lewis v. State (Del. 2018).
“§ 841; two counts of Criminal Mischief (misdemeanor) under 11 Del. C. § 811; and one count of Receiving Stolen Property (felony) under 11 Del.”
Warncke v. State (Del. 2023).
“There are three degrees of criminal mischief under 11 Del. C. § 811: it is a felony when the pecuniary loss exceeds $5,000; a class A misdemeanor when the loss exceeds $1,000 but is below $5,000; and an unclassified misdemeanor when the loss 1 App.”
— 11 Del. C. § 811(a) — 1 case
— 11 Del. C. § 811(a)(1) — 1 case
— 11 Del. C. § 811(b)(3) — 1 case
Muhammad v. State (Del. 2015).
“Muhammad argued that his convictions and sentences for two counts of Criminal Mischief violated the multiplicity doctrine because only one entity (the Wilmington Housing Authority) suffered damage and that same entity was the only entity to suffer the pecuniary loss element of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.