I need to know becasue there are often situations
where I must walk on grass if it is not prohibited
by law. I've read some books about turfgrass
maintenance and I've discovered that any
walking on grass always causes some damage that
is detectable. But OTOH common usage would
suggest that it is legal to walk on the grass,
unless there is a sign or law that specifically
says otherwise. Any advice? Thanks in advance.
I am not a lawyer. I do not even see email sent to this address, due to
past DOS attacks. If you wish to respond, do so through this newsgroup.

If a jury finds that a reasonable person in your position could have seen
that walking on the grass was "reckless" and destructive to the grass, you
could be validly found guilty of criminal mischief.

<thisisme@cotse.net> wrote in message
news:dGhpc2lzbWU=.17f912611f3fbe7faf2613229b145b1e@1098818702.nulluser.com...

"Falky foo" <falkyfoo@bonksbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:7Fzfd.512$zx1.90@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
That's not necessarily true. You need a statute or some authority setting
out the elements of the crime. Under Texas' statute, at least,
"reckless[ly]" walking on the grass is not crim mischief as a matter of

Tex. Pen. Code 28.03. CRIMINAL MISCHIEF.
(a) A person commits an
offense if, without the effective consent of the owner:
(1) he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys
the tangible property of the owner;
(2) he intentionally or knowingly tampers with the
tangible property of the owner and causes pecuniary loss or
substantial inconvenience to the owner or a third person; or
(3) he intentionally or knowingly makes markings,
including inscriptions, slogans, drawings, or paintings, on the
tangible property of the owner.

Key term here is "knowingly".. . "knowledge" can be imputed when you do
something that should be obvious to a reasonable person, ie. when you're
reckless.

"Falky foo" <falkyfoo@bonksbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:CgFfd.35092$QJ3.33458@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Not really sure what you're getting at, so the following may be taking us
further nowhere, but you asserted, without qualification, that

was adequate to establish CM when recklessness is plainly *not* a

mental state to establish it (again, I'm just referencing the TX

IOW, while a factfinder could probably infer knowledge from reckless

in many situations, conduct that rises *only* to the level of

is prolly not knowing as a matter of law. As a practical matter, it's a
fine line, but the line is definitely there. Also note that in your
previous post you used an objective std when the statute requires a

that the defendant in fact acted knowingly (and not whether a reasonable
person would've acted knowingly).
---
6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES.
.....
(b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect
to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his
conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the
circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge,
with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his
conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.
(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect
to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his
conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a
substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or
the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree
that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard
of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the
circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

Zen Cohen wrote:

Golly, so from what you're saying I probably
should not have looked in the book on
turfgrass maintenance, because now I *know* that
it does cause damage, so that puts me in a
different class of people -- ?
{using the TX law, of course}

<thisisme@cotse.net> wrote in message

.....
In a theoretical prosecution, it is is evidence that, if known, might be
used against you to establish your mental state. But FWIW, I did

in Texas before I became a lawyer (even took a course in Turfgrass
Management), and based on my experience in both fields, no one's ever

charge (much less convict) you with crim mischief for walking on the

unless you intentionally stomp the crap out of it.