Both offenses are described in G.L. c. 266, § 127: malicious destruction is a felony and thus carries a possible State prison sentence; wanton destruction is a misdemeanor, carrying only a house of correction sentence, the length of the sentence depending on the value of the property destroyed. The court in Commonwealth v. Cimino, 34 Mass.App.Ct. 925, 611 N.E.2d 738 (1993), also discussed the difference between malicious and wanton destruction and noted that “[t]he line cannot be located exactly; an approximation must do.” Id. at 927, 611 N.E.2d 738. There, Cimino and his associates “had taken turns shooting out the windows of parked cars.

Wanton damage or destruction of property, on the other hand, is a general intent crime that requires only a showing that the actor's conduct was indifferent to, or in disregard of, the probable consequences. Compare Commonwealth v. Cimino, 34 Mass.App.Ct. 925, 927, 611 N.E.2d 738 (1993). See Deberry, supra at 212 n. 2, 804 N.E.2d 911.

In particular, we are aware that the line between "wanton" destruction of property and "malicious" destruction of property "cannot be located exactly; an approximation must do." Commonwealth v. Cimino, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 925, 927 (1993). Applying these principles to the entirety of the Commonwealth's evidence, we are persuaded that the jury rationally could conclude that the defendant's conduct was properly located on the "malice" side of that imprecise line.

"The [defendant's] animus need not have so personalized an object." Commonwealth v. Cimino, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 925, 927 (1993). Here, the defendant argues because his hostility was directed at Valentin, the damage he caused to the car was the "by-product" of a separate criminal enterprise; in other words his act of stabbing the window was a means to effectuate harm upon Valentin.

See Schuchardt, 408 Mass. at 352, 557 N.E.2d 1380 ; Redmond, supra at 5, 757 N.E.2d 249.Commonwealth v. Cimino, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 925, 611 N.E.2d 738 (1993), on which the Commonwealth relies, is not to the contrary. In that case, the defendant was convicted of malicious destruction of property based on his destruction of car windows by shooting through them with a BB gun. What made the shootings malicious rather than wanton is that destruction of the windows was the defendant's principal purpose in shooting at them.

"[T]he animus need not have so personalized an object." Commonwealth v. Cimino, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 925, 927 (1993). See Commonwealth v. Hosman, 257 Mass. 379, 384-385 (1926); Commonwealth v. Peruzzi, supra at 442 n. 4.

494 N.E.2d at 1299. In Commonwealth v. Cimino, 34 Mass.App.Ct. 925, 611 N.E.2d 738 (1993), the defendant went on a “shooting round,” during which he and a group of his friends took turns shooting a BB gun at (and thereby breaking) the windows of seventeen parked cars, id. at 740. Because the defendant and his accomplices had deliberately “aimed the BB pistol and hit their targets,” the court found the crime “wilful and malicious.”

Of course, in certain circumstances a seemingly minor type of damage may effectively destroy the value of an entire property, such as a tear in a valuable painting or a chip in an antique cup. The various decisions of the Appeals Court that touch on this question are not inconsistent with our ruling. Where property has been only partially damaged, the Appeals Court has either measured the "value" of property by damage or cost of repair, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Ruddock, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 508, 512 (1988) (evidence introduced of cost of repair of automobile dented by student protestor, not value of automobile); Commonwealth v. Peruzzi, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 437, 439 (1983) (evidence introduced of cost of repair, not value of automobile), or declined to reach the question, see Commonwealth v. Walters, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 389, 394 n. 4 (1981) (declining to decide whether value of damage to personal property or value of property itself that must exceed $250); see also Commonwealth v. Cimino, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 925, 927-928 (1993) (injury confined to automobile windows damaged by shots from BB gun; felony sentences vacated and automobile's value as whole not considered). In Commonwealth v. Pyburn, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 967, 968 (1979), the Appeals Court stated that it was error to admit "an itemized bill of an estimate of repairs" because "[e]vidence of the amount of damage to the automobile was immaterial."

; wilful conduct is intentional and by design in contrast to that which is thoughtless or accidental" (quotations omitted). Commonwealth v. Cimino, 34 Mass.App.Ct. 925, 927 (1993).

Instead, malicious conduct is frequently distinguished from wanton conduct on the basis that the defendant's principal purpose is to cause damage to the property at issue, whereas wanton conduct tends to be characterized by recklessness or the attempt to accomplish another objective. See Commonwealth v. Cimino, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 925, 927 (1993); Commonwealth v. Gordon, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 227, 230-232 (2012). In the present case, the Commonwealth presented evidence that, at the time of the incident, a witness heard a loud bang, and the wall shook "a lot."