Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 750 / Act 328 of 1931
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.377a (2026)

Willful and malicious destruction of personal property; enhanced sentence.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE


Act 328 of 1931


750.377a Willful and malicious destruction of personal property; enhanced sentence.

Sec. 377a.

    (1) A person who willfully and maliciously destroys or injures the personal property of another person is guilty of a crime as follows:

    (a) If any of the following apply, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $15,000.00 or 3 times the amount of the destruction or injury, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine:

    (i) The amount of the destruction or injury is $20,000.00 or more.

    (ii) The person violates subdivision (b)(i) and has 2 or more prior convictions for committing or attempting to commit an offense under this section. For purposes of this subparagraph, however, a prior conviction does not include a conviction for a violation or attempted violation of subdivision (c)(ii), (e), or (f).

    (b) If any of the following apply, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00 or 3 times the amount of the destruction or injury, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine:

    (i) The amount of the destruction or injury is $1,000.00 or more but less than $20,000.00.

    (ii) The person violates subdivision (c)(i) and has 1 or more prior convictions for committing or attempting to commit an offense under this section. For purposes of this subparagraph, however, a prior conviction does not include a conviction for a violation or attempted violation of subdivision (c)(ii), (e), or (f).

    (c) If any of the following apply, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $2,000.00 or 3 times the amount of the destruction or injury, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine:

    (i) The amount of the destruction or injury is $200.00 or more but less than $1,000.00.

    (ii) The person violates subdivision (e) or (f) and has 1 or more prior convictions for committing or attempting to commit an offense under this section or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to this section.

    (d) If the person and the property owner are spouses or former spouses, have or have had a dating relationship, have or have had a child in common, or are residents or former residents of the same household, and any of the following apply, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $2,000.00 or 3 times the amount of the destruction or injury, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine:

    (i) The amount of the destruction or injury is $200.00 or more but less than $1,000.00.

    (ii) The person violates subdivision (e) or (f) and has 1 or more prior convictions for committing or attempting to commit an offense under this section or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to this section.

    (e) If the amount of the destruction or injury is less than $200.00, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00 or 3 times the amount of the destruction or injury, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine.

    (f) If the person and the property owner are spouses or former spouses, have or have had a dating relationship, have or have had a child in common, or are residents or former residents of the same household and the amount of the destruction or injury is less than $200.00, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00 or 3 times the amount of the destruction or injury, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine.

    (2) The amounts of destruction or injury in separate incidents pursuant to a scheme or course of conduct within any 12-month period may be aggregated in determining the total amount of the destruction or injury.

    (3) If the prosecuting attorney intends to seek an enhanced sentence based upon the defendant having 1 or more prior convictions, the prosecuting attorney shall include on the complaint and information a statement listing the prior conviction or convictions. The existence of the defendant's prior conviction or convictions must be determined by the court, without a jury, at sentencing or at a separate hearing for that purpose before sentencing. The existence of a prior conviction may be established by any evidence relevant for that purpose, including, but not limited to, 1 or more of the following:

    (a) A copy of the judgment of conviction.

    (b) A transcript of a prior trial, plea-taking, or sentencing.

    (c) Information contained in a presentence report.

    (d) The defendant's statement.

    (4) If the sentence for a conviction under this section is enhanced by 1 or more prior convictions, those prior convictions must not be used to further enhance the sentence for the conviction pursuant to section 10, 11, or 12 of chapter IX of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 769.10, 769.11, and 769.12.

    (5) As used in this section, "dating relationship" means frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affectional involvement. This term does not include a casual relationship or an ordinary fraternization between 2 individuals in a business or social context.

    

    

History: Add. 1941, Act 51, Eff. Jan. 10, 1942 ;-- CL 1948, 750.377a ;-- Am. 1957, Act 69, Eff. Sept. 27, 1957 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 311, Eff. Jan. 1, 1999 ;-- Am. 2023, Act 199, Eff. Feb. 13, 2024

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 119 cases (34 in the last 5 years), 1951–2026 · leading case: People v. Smith, 918 N.W.2d 718 (Mich. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Smith, 918 N.W.2d 718 (Mich. 2018). · cites it 3× “81 ; malicious destruction of personal property (worth $20,000 or more), MCL 750.377a ; and felony-firearm, MCL 750.”
People v. Hamblin, 568 N.W.2d 339 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 5× “The people of the State of Michigan appeal by leave granted from the trial court’s order reducing the charge against defendant, a police officer, from the felony offense of malicious destruction of property over $100, MCL 750.377a; MSA 28.609(1), to the misdemeanor offense of…”
People v. Allen, 884 N.W.2d 548 (Mich. 2016). · cites it 2× “157w(4) (use of financial transaction device in excess of funds with intent to defraud); MCL 750.174(11) (embezzlement); MCL 750.”
People v. Walker, 593 N.W.2d 673 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “269, and malicious destruction of personal property over $100 in value, MCL 750.377a; MSA 28.609(1). The trial court sentenced defendant to *301 thirty-two to forty-eight months in prison for each conviction.”
People v. Rivera, 835 N.W.2d 464 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “81(2), and malicious destruction of personal property less than $200, MCL 750.377a (l)(d). We reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
Hinton v. Parole Bd., 383 N.W.2d 626 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “277, and MCL 750.377a; MSA 28.609(1). Allegedly, Hinton and his two brothers assaulted a patron at Rocky's Bar, located in the City of Detroit, and proceeded to break up tables and *238 chairs and cause other damage.”
People v. Culp, 310 N.W.2d 421 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “Does the offense of malicious destruction of property, MCL 750.377a; MSA 28.609(1), require a finding of specific intent? The question *454 raised is of first impression.”
In Re McEvoy, 704 N.W.2d 78 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “73, and malicious destruction of personal property, MCL 750.377a(1). *59 Following the fire, the school district hired contractors to clean up, and refurbish or replace damaged equipment and furniture.”
People v. Nelson, 594 N.W.2d 114 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “Defendant appeals as of right from his jury trial conviction of malicious destruction of personal property valued in excess of $100, MCL 750.377a; MSA 28.609(1). The trial court sentenced defendant as an habitual offender, fourth offense, MCL 769.”
People v. Slager, 307 N.W.2d 376 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “276 and MCL 750.377a; MSA 28.609(1) respectively, are misdemeanors with maximum imprisonment of 90 days, MCL 750.”
In Re Lee, 761 N.W.2d 432 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “110a(3). After a prehminary inquiry, the family court could, “in the inter *94 est of the juvenile and the public: (1) deny authorization of the petition; (2) refer the matter to a public or private agency providing available services pursuant to the Juvenile Diversion Act, MCL…”
People v. Yost, 445 N.W.2d 95 (Mich. 1989). · cites it 2× “MCL 750.377a, 750.504; MSA 28.609(1), 28.”
Show all 119 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.377a(1) — 6 cases
In Re McEvoy, 704 N.W.2d 78 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “73, and malicious destruction of personal property, MCL 750.377a(1). *59 Following the fire, the school district hired contractors to clean up, and refurbish or replace damaged equipment and furniture.”
People of Michigan v. James Troy Wyatt (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
People of Michigan v. Tamekia Deshon Young (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
People of Michigan v. Marko Lacharr McGee (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
DeSandre v. Oscoda, Cnty. of (E.D. Mich. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.377a(1)(a) — 1 case
People v. Smith, 918 N.W.2d 718 (Mich. 2018). “81 ; malicious destruction of personal property (worth $20,000 or more), MCL 750.377a ; and felony-firearm, MCL 750.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.377a(1)(a)(i) — 8 cases
People of Michigan v. Virgil Smith, 922 N.W.2d 615 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
People of Michigan v. Virgil Smith (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
People of Michigan v. Virgil Smith (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
People of Michigan v. Virgil Smith (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
People of Michigan v. Virgil Smith (Mich. 2020).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.377a(1)(b)(1) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. James Patrick Auvil (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.377a(1)(b)(i) — 27 cases
People of Michigan v. Randy Marsh (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
20250218_C369053_36_369053.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
People of Michigan v. Raul Contreras (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
People of Michigan v. Keishawn Ivory Dismuke (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
People of Michigan v. Lenero Antonio Thomas (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.377a(1)(c) — 3 cases
People of Michigan v. Kirk Wayne Labadie (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
People of Michigan v. James Troy Wyatt (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
People of Michigan v. Benjamin Harden Jacobs (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.377a(1)(c)(1) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Vertese Steven Woods (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.377a(1)(c)(i) — 22 cases
People of Michigan v. Michelle Martise Ridley (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
in Re M C III Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
Jenaa Grier v. Sharon McClure (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
People of Michigan v. Shanisha Molden (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
People of Michigan v. Shanisha Molden (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.377a(1)(d) — 22 cases
Miner v. Ogemaw Cnty. Road Comm'n (E.D. Mich. 2022).
People of Michigan v. Fatima Salima Nelson (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
Miner v. Ogemaw Cnty. Road Comm'n (E.D. Mich. 2022).
People of Michigan v. Matthew James Blumke (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
People of Michigan v. Timothy Courdre Matthews (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.377a(1)(e) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Terrence Bernard King (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.377a(4) — 1 case
People v. Allen, 884 N.W.2d 548 (Mich. 2016). “157w(4) (use of financial transaction device in excess of funds with intent to defraud); MCL 750.174(11) (embezzlement); MCL 750.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.377a(l)(b)(i) — 1 case
In Re Lee, 761 N.W.2d 432 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “110a(3). After a prehminary inquiry, the family court could, “in the inter *94 est of the juvenile and the public: (1) deny authorization of the petition; (2) refer the matter to a public or private agency providing available services pursuant to the Juvenile Diversion Act, MCL…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.377a(l)(c)(i) — 1 case
In Re Lee, 761 N.W.2d 432 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “110a(3). After a prehminary inquiry, the family court could, “in the inter *94 est of the juvenile and the public: (1) deny authorization of the petition; (2) refer the matter to a public or private agency providing available services pursuant to the Juvenile Diversion Act, MCL…”
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.