I'm not trying to poll the forum--just seeking any input from others with similar experiences or known case law relating to the following.

Church bus is parked near church building on church parking lot behind church gate. Suspects enter church parking lot and break out multiple windows on church bus. Damaged windows cost $800-$1000 to repair.

For purposes of PC 28.03(f), would this qualify for "on a place of worship" within meaning of statute?

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Craig Jones

quote:

---

(f) An offense under this section is a state jail felony if the damage or destruction is inflicted on a place of worship or human burial, a public monument, or a community center that provides medical, social, or educational programs and the amount of the pecuniary loss to real property or to tangible personal property is less than $20,000.

---

To me, in context of the other protected places, I feel like it should be damage the building itself. This is just a layman's gut feeling, I have not looked at any case law.

I think you are OK to proceed under the "place of worship" theory. Your facts are not as clear as if the damage were to the building itself, but I do not think that is required. while Layman makes a good point, what if the damage were to a statue on the church grounds? Not the building itself, but still good enough. Indict, then consider an instruction on the lesser included depending on your jury, how the trial goes, etc. Assuming the buse was clearly marked, could there be an issue re: the offense was committed based on the religious affiliation of the victim (church)?

Larry L,
I agree. To me it seems that the legislative intent would follow suit with what you say or they would have narrowly worded it "on a building of worship". Black's Law Dictionary defines a "place" in broad terms and I think the criminal mischief statute fits this situation merely because the church bus was clearly marked and it was parked on gated church property and its is used solely for church related functions. We'll see how it all pans out--I got a call into a couple ADA's locally. Thanks.

CRJ

Reading the plain language of the statute, a place where one worships is the building itself -- not a bus in a parking lot. No worship services take place on the bus.

Under your theory then you could file on someone who vandalizes the cars of the worshipers that are in the parking lot during service, simply because they happen to be parked in a parking lot that belongs to a church.

That makes no sense.

A "place of worship" is that actual building where you go to worship the god of your choice. Stuff parked outside in the parking lot do not count.

Who is to say no worship took place on the bus ??

I know when I was a kid riding the church bus, there was PLENTY of worship going on (and I don't mean because of the driving).

Even now, my church in Houston had a bus ministry for the skate kids that would go out to the places where the skateboarding kids hung out and provide them with food and play christian music while they skated.

Stacey,

Your example is in the ball park of why I asked the question in this post. The bus does belong to the church and it is marked with the church's name and the church's youth group and it is used exclusively for church functions. The damage to it was done while it was on the church's property behind the church's gate at closed hours. I believe this tilts the scale toward a SJF offense under the criminal mischief statute for "on a place of worship". On the other hand, if the bus were parked at Wal Mart, I don't think it would be the same because the concept of "on a place of worship" is diluted by the lacking presence of the home-property of the church and all of the church's surroundings.

CRJ

If the statute is designed to give some extra protection to places of worship, then why would it limit the crime to the building itself? The protection is clearly aimed at person who targets property for its religious affiliation. So a vandal who targets the church bus (or the cars in the parking lot during services) is clearly doing so because of the character of the property as being connected to the place of worship. I think that makes plenty of sense, RTC.

quote:

---

If the statute is designed to give some extra protection to places of worship [...]

---

I think the extra protection to places of worship is a side-effect rather than the purpose of this law.

I read it as "hate crime vandalism" ... to punish acts like vandalism and graffiti more harshly when committed as a form of social commentary. The particular places (grave, church, and monument) are the kinds of places someone might befoul as a statement of their agenda. For example: neo-Nazis desecrating a grave of a civil-rights activist. I'm not conviced of these things, its just kinda how it seems to me when looking at the list of places.


Another thing: there may be praying in the courtroom before a verdict is read... and if the bus ministry goes to the skate park and kids worship and listen to religious music.... Does the skate park become a "place of worship?"


One last thing: PC 28.01 includes definitions for Habitation, Property, Building, and Vehicle ... but none of these words are used in 28.03(f)

I do not think the bus would qualify as a place of worship when you consider the other places listed in 28.03(f). I think you would be stretching the statute too far.

I don't know of any caselaw, etc., that has deemed a church bus to fall under that enhancement. It sounds like an open question to me, but unless you like to make new law, it might be simplest to let it go.

It won't make it a state jail felony, but you could also seek a hate crime finding under CCP 42.014. That would enhance the minimum Class A sentence to 180 days (per PC 12.47) and require up to 90 days in jail as a condition of any probation (per CCP 42.12, Sec. 13A).

And if the crime doesn't meet the test for a hate crime, then that might tell you something about the appropriateness of seeking to punish it as a felony in the first place.

Shannon, Ken, and others,

Thanks for the guidance and input. I am a frequent reader of the TDCAA forums and I appreciate the points of view expressed. As for me making a new law in this case, "I ain't sceered" but I don't think it'll make it that far. You gotta admit though, the posed question has merit for a SJF under the criminal mischief statute. I'll pass on the "hate crimes" part and see where it goes. Thanks again.

CRJ