J.W.S., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
J.W.S. appealed his adjudication of delinquency for criminal mischief, challenging a finding that he damaged a fence at a mobile home park. The court reversed because the evidence showed the fence was already damaged before J.W.S. climbed over it on the alleged date, and there was no evidence he caused additional damage.
The court reversed J.W.S.'s adjudication of delinquency because damage to property is an element of the criminal mischief statute, and there was no evidence that J.W.S. caused any damage to the fence on the date in question.
[1] A person may be found guilty of criminal mischief only if there is evidence that the person willfully and maliciously injured or damaged property belonging to another.
[2] A criminal mischief charge should be dismissed where there is no evidence of damage to the property at issue.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A person may be found guilty of criminal mischief "if he or she willfully and maliciously injures or damages by any means any real or personal property belonging to another, including, but not limited to, the placement of graffiti thereon or other acts of vandalism thereto."”
Establishes the statutory definition and elements of criminal mischief under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn January 23, 2004, the manager of Carr Mobile Home Park observed J.W.S. climbing over a six-foot-high chainlink fence surrounding the park. The mana…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Criminal Mischief cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
J.W.S. appeals his adjudication of delinquency for criminal mischief. It was alleged that he willfully damaged a fence on Januaiy 23, 2004. We reverse because there was no evidence that J.W.S. caused damage to the fence on the day in question. The manager of the Carr Mobile Home Park testified that on January 23, 2004, she saw J.W.S. go over a fence that surrounds the park. The fence is a six-foot-high chainlink fence. The manager testified, “They continuously pulled the fence down so that they wouldn’t have to climb it. They could just push it down and step over the top of it.” However, the manager testified that the fence was already damaged before J.W.S. climbed over it on that date, and there was no evidence that J.W.S.’s actions on that day caused additional damage to the fence.
A person may be found guilty of criminal mischief “if he or she willfully and maliciously injures or damages by any means any real or personal property belonging to another, including, but not limited to, the placement of graffiti thereon or other acts of vandalism thereto.” § 806.13(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003). A criminal mischief charge should be dismissed where there is no evidence of damage to the property at issue. C.B. v. State, 721 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); see also N.R. v. State, 452 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (holding that damage to property is an element of the criminal mischief statute). In the present case, the trial court erred in denying J.W.S.’s motion for judgment of dismissal, because there was no evidence that J.W.S. caused damage to the fence on the date alleged.
Accordingly, we reverse J.W.S.’s adjudication of delinquency and remand this case for the trial court to discharge him on the criminal mischief offense.
Reversed and remanded.
ALTENBERND, C.J., and LaROSE, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McKENZIE v. State, 201 So. 3d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…contest, that the trial court erred by including the criminal mischief charge on the order of revocation, where the State did not present any evidence at the revocation hearing that McKenzie caused any property damage. We agree. See J.W.S. v. State, 899 So. 2d 1276, 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“A criminal mischief charge should be dismissed where there is no evidence of damage to the property at issue”). However, upon consideration of the entire record in this matter, we are confident both that the trial court…
Authorities Cited
- C.B. v. State, 721 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Wis. Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Gus Leichter and Florence Leichter, 452 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- N.R. v. State, 452 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)