Which of the following is NOT an element of the Graffiti Control Act?

The assertion that prior consent from the property owner is not an element of the Graffiti Control Act is accurate because the Act primarily focuses on the actions of individuals regarding graffiti-related offenses rather than on the consent of property owners. The elements of the Graffiti Control Act are centered around the intention and actions of the accused, such as intentionally marking premises or property, which aligns with the criminal conduct addressed by the Act.

The inclusion of “accused without reasonable excuse” indicates that a defense based on a reasonable explanation for the act is often scrutinized under the law. Similarly, “intentionally marks premises or property” is a clear indicator of the unlawful behavior that the Act seeks to penalize. The element regarding “circumstances of aggravation exist” also pertains to specific situations that may enhance the severity of the offense, reflecting the contextual factors considered in enforcement and sentencing.

In contrast, the requirement for prior consent does not feature in the legal framework of the Graffiti Control Act, as it does not impact the illegality of the actions of marking someone else's property without permission in the first place. Thus, this aspect underscores the offense rather than legitimizing it through property owner consent.