Appeal court quashes acquittal for intentional damage due to insufficient evidence of intent and co-ownership.

The appellate court quashed the first-instance acquittal and remanded the case for a new trial. The defendant was originally found not guilty because the court ruled she lacked intent to damage the tree and that the tree belonged to her jointly owned land. The appellate court rejected these findings, noting that the evidence failed to prove either the specific intent required for the offense or the disputed ownership status of the tree.