It is true, as the Commonwealth points out, that the trier of fact may employ "common sense" and common experience to determine the valuation issue. See Commonwealth v. Muckle , 59 Mass.App.Ct. 631, 643, 797 N.E.2d 456 (2003), citing Commonwealth v. Hosman , 257 Mass. 379, 385-386, 154 N.E. 76 (1926). Here, however, equipped only with the brand and photograph of the ring, we cannot conclude that the application of common sense and experience is sufficient to fill the evidentiary gap. Compare Muckle , supra (noting jury may apply "common sense" to conclude that value of vehicle exceeded $250), with Tracy , 27 Mass.App.Ct. at 467, 539 N.E.2d 1043 (concluding common experience of jurors insufficient to establish that value of firearm exceeded one hundred dollars).

It is immaterial whether the defendant knew the identity of the owner of the property. Commonwealth v. Peruzzi, supra at 442 n. 4. See Commonwealth v. Hosman, 257 Mass. 379, 384-385 (1926). The evidence clearly warranted the judge in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's destructive acts were by design and were hostile to the owner of the booth.

Under that portion of § 127 bracketed as [1] at note 1, supra, and its antecedents, an injurious act is deemed criminal when it is shown to have been committed with a spirit of cruelty, revenge, or hostility. See Commonwealth v. Walden, 3 Cush. 558 (1849); Commonwealth v. Williams, 110 Mass. 401 (1872); Commonwealth v. Hosman, 257 Mass. 379 (1926); Commonwealth v. Peruzzi, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 437 (1983). See also Nolan, Criminal Law § 427, at 259-260 (1976).