IV. 2 . Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 585, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980) (quoting United. States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 313, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972)). 3 . The government also argued that the search of the bathroom was permissible as a search incident to a lawful arrest. This argument is not pursued on appeal, 4 . Appellant did not present any evidence at trial. 5 . This element is satisfied even if the defendant is a co-owner of the property. See Jackson v. United States, 819 A.2d 963, 966-67 (D.C.2003). 6 . See Criminal Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia, No. 5.400 (5th ed. rev. 2015); see also Guzman v. United States, 821 A.2d 895, 898 (D.C.2003) (defining "malice”); Brown v. United States, 584 A.2d 537, 539 (D.C. 1990) (<HOLDING>). 7 . Rivas v. United States, 783 A.2d 125, 134
holding that provocation is a proper defense to the charge of malicious destruction of property holding that conviction on misdemeanor assault charge did not bar malicious prosecution claim for misdemeanor resisting arrest charge holding that a taking occurred where flooding of the plaintiffs property amounted to an almost complete destruction of the value of the land holding the same for malicious prosecution recognizing a charge of common law grand larceny as the basis of an action for malicious prosecution