Tom Tenant rented an apartment from Louie Landlord. Tom had to move out of town and asked Louie to allow him to sublet the apartment to a friend of his. Louie refused and Tom ended up having some rent liability under the original lease. He was angry about this, and as a result, he decided not to leave the installed speaker system he had put in the apartment for the next tenant. (Until Louie’s decision on the sublet, he had planned to do so, since he couldn’t use the speakers in his new place).

Tom carefully removed the speakers, making sure not to damage any of the walls or vents in the apartment. The speakers could not be removed without some damage to their coverings, but, since Tom was so angry at the landlord, he really didn’t care and was willing to put up with that damage to prevent Louie from getting the benefit of the speaker system.

Louie was upset when he discovered Tom had taken the speaker system. Louie checked with his lawyer and discovered that the speaker system constituted a fixture under the law, and although installed voluntarily by Tom at his own expense, became part of the real property and belonged to Louie in fact. Louie demanded the speakers back, and when he got them, he discovered the damaged coverings. Louie called the police and Tom has been charged with violation of the following statute:

Whoever knowingly damages property of another shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Discuss the potential criminal liability of Tom under this statute.

How would the analysis be different if the statute he were charged under read:

Whoever maliciously damages property of another shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Whoever willfully damages property of another shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.