R.C.R., A CHILD, 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.
The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a juvenile's felony conviction for criminal mischief, holding that the state failed to prove the damaged property exceeded $1,000 in value. The court ruled that damage amount must be proven by fair market value, not repair costs, and remanded for entry of a lesser misdemeanor conviction.
The court held that the amount of damage is an essential element of felony criminal mischief that must be proved by fair market value at the time of the crime, not by repair costs. The court reversed the felony conviction because the state failed to establish damage exceeding $1,000 and remanded for modification to a first-degree misdemeanor conviction.
[1] The value of damaged property, when an element of a felony offense, must be proven by the market value of the property at the time of the offense, not the cost of repairs…
[2] The market value of property for criminal charges can be ascertained by considering original market cost, manner of use, general condition and quality, and percentage of…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The amount of damage is an element of felony criminal mischief.”
Establishes that damage amount is a critical element the state must prove to support a felony conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR.C.R., a juvenile, was charged with felony criminal mischief for damaging a fifteen-year-old pickup truck. The victim had purchased the truck for $50…
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 Market Value Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, J.
We reverse a disposition order finding R.C.R., a juvenile, guilty of criminal mischief of $1,000 or more, a third-degree felony. The record reflects that the state failed to prove that the value of the property damaged, a fifteen-year-old pickup truck, exceeded $1,000.
The vehicle had no tag, was up on blocks, and the transmission was removed and in pieces on the adjacent ground. The victim testified that he had paid $500.00 for the truck days before and had removed the transmission because it was not operational. He testified that the vehicle’s previous owner had not expected to get anything for the truck. However, the victim also estimated, without supporting documentation, that repairs going into the vehicle were worth close to $2,700.00; $800 to $900 in parts, plus labor supplied by his employees.
The amount of damage is an element of felony criminal mischief. Meenaghan v. State, 601 So. 2d 307, 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). This court has recognized that for grand theft, the state must establish the market value of the stolen proper ty at the time of the theft beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. Moore v. State, 183 So. 2d 563, 564 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966).
The Supreme Court of Florida, in discussing valuation in the context of theft, concluded that “if the value of property is an essential element of a crime then that value should be based upon the market value of the property at the time of the crime .... ” and lists four alternative factors that the trier of fact can consider when ascertaining market value: “(1) original market cost; (2) manner in which the item was used; (3) the general condition and quality of the item; and (4) the percentage of depreciation.” State v. Hawthorne, 573 So. 2d 330, 332 (Fla.1991) (citing to Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla.1974) (finding the evidence insufficient to support a charge of grand larceny, but sufficient to prove the lesser charge of petty larceny)).
We conclude that, here, the amount of damage element may not be proved by what it may ultimately take to make the victim whole, but by the value of what was lost. In this case, there is no proof relating the claimed repair expense to the value of the stolen property. We need not address whether there are circumstances where the cost of repair may be considered as proof of value, but certainly such costs cannot be used to the extent that they exceed fair market value. Even in civil cases it has been recognized that costs of repair exceeding market value are not a substitute for fair market value. Kluger v. White, 281 So. 2d 1, 3 (Fla.1973) (citing to Blashfield, Automobile Law, Vol. 15, s 480.1 and 25 C.J.S. Damages s 82). Likewise, in a fraudulent disclosure case, the Fifth District recognized that the measure of damages could not exceed the reduction in the value of the structure. Vaughn v. Munn, 826 So. 2d 1094, 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
The felony judgment and sentence are reversed and we remand for modification to first-degree misdemeanor criminal mischief.
GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marrero v. State, 71 So. 3d 881 (Fla. 2011)…[*884] casino patron. The State charged Marre-ro, as relevant here, with felony criminal mischief. The State attempted to introduce costs associated with the temporary repair of the damaged property, but defense counsel, relying on R.C.R. v. State, 916 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), objected to the introduction of evidence of temporary repair costs because such costs may be rendered inadmissible if the permanent repair costs are also introduced, as the sum of these costs may exceed the fair market value of…
-
Perez v. State, 162 So. 3d 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…little nicer” than other end tables, were worth at least $100 each. In establishing the amount of damage to destroyed property under section 806.13(1)(b), the State must prove the property’s market value beyond a reasonable doubt. R.C.R. v. State, 916 So. 2d 49, 49-50 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). If the State does not have direct evidence of the property’s market value, it may establish market value using the following factors: “ ‘(1) original market cost; (2) manner in which the item was used; (3) the general con…
-
L.D.G. v. State, 960 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…o repaired her vehicle” the sum of $1,250 in payment of the repairs. We deem this testimony as prima facie proof by competent, substantial evidence that the damage exceeded $1,000. The juvenile relies principally on our decision in R.C.R. v. State, 916 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), and argues that it requires a reversal for insufficient evidence of damage. We disagree. The decision in R.C.R. stands for the proposition that repair costs cannot be used to establish the amount of the damage element in a charg…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kluger v. Bernadette White & Manchester Ins. & Indem. Co., 281 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1973)
- State v. Hawthorne, 573 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1991)
- Ozzie Joseph Negron and Teresa Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1974)
- Moore v. State, 183 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- Meenaghan v. State, 601 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Vaughn v. Munn, 826 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)