H.F., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
H.F., a juvenile, was convicted of petit theft and criminal mischief after grabbing and breaking a victim's phone during a road rage incident. The appellate court affirmed the petit theft conviction but reversed the criminal mischief conviction, finding insufficient evidence that H.F. intended to damage the phone rather than acting with malice toward the victim.
The court affirmed the petit theft conviction as supported by sufficient competent substantial evidence, but reversed the criminal mischief conviction because the evidence demonstrated malice toward the victim rather than the required willful intent to damage or destroy the property.
[1] Sufficient competent substantial evidence supports a judgment for petit theft.
[2] A necessary element of criminal mischief is that the defendant willfully and maliciously injures or damages real or personal property belonging to another.
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“it is a necessary element of the crime of criminal mischief, that the defendant willfully and maliciously injures or damage real or personal property belonging to another”
Establishes the statutory elements required for a criminal mischief conviction 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 intelligenceH.F. and the victim were involved in a road rage altercation. Three days later, the victim recognized H.F. at a mall and attempted to call police usin…
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
PER CURIAM.
H.F., a juvenile, appeals the trial court’s judgment for petit theft and criminal mischief. We affirm the judgment for petit theft, and reverse the judgment for criminal mischief.
H.F. and the victim were involved in a road rage traffic altercation. H.F. left the scene while the victim attempted to call the police. Three days later, the victim recognized H.F. at a mall and pulled out her phone to call the police. H.F. shouted to the victim that she better not take his picture. He then purposefully bumped into the victim and grabbed her phone, which she had attached to her wrist. The phone broke in half as H.F. fled.
Thereafter, the State charged H.F. with petit theft and criminal mischief. After trial, the trial court found H.F. guilty on both charges. H.F. now appeals both judgments.
Turning first to the petit theft, we determine that there was sufficient competent substantial evidence to support the petit theft, and therefore, we affirm the judgment. See Collins v. State, 446 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Turning next to the criminal mischief judgment, it is a necessary element of the crime of criminal mischief, that the defendant willfully and maliciously injures or damage real or personal property belonging to another. § 806.13(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003). The defendant argues that the State did not meet its burden on this element. We agree.
After reviewing the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that the defendant intended to damage or destroy the telephone as opposed to acting with malice towards the victim. See Sanchez v. State, 909 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (acting with malice toward the person of the owner of the property is not enough to support a conviction for criminal mischief); Insignares v. State, 847 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); In Interest of J.G., 655 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); cf. M.H. v. State, No. 3D05-1357, — So. 2d -, 2006 WL 860974 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 5, 2006) (willfully driving a stolen scooter through a fence with knowledge that the scooter may be damaged was sufficient evidence to support a conviction of criminal mischief). Therefore, we reverse the judgment on this charge.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment for petit theft, and reverse the judgment for criminal mischief.
Affirmed in part, and reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stinnett v. State, 935 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…. Moreover, an intent to damage the property of another does not arise by operation of law where the defendant’s true intention is to cause harm to the person of another. In re J.G., 655 So. 2d 1284, 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); see also H.F. v. State, 927 So. 2d 163, 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (reversing conviction for criminal mischief when State’s evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the defendant intended to damage or destroy the victim’s property). Failure to prove this element of the offense is…
-
Walker v. State, 154 So. 3d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…ief.” 936 So. 2d at 4. In other words, the criminal mischief statute requires that when a defendant acts with malice toward another person, rather than toward property, that malice does not transfer to the property. Id. at 5; see also H.F. v. State, 927 So. 2d 163, 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (concluding that “the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that the defendant intended to damage or destroy the telephone as opposed to acting with malice towards the victim”); Sanchez v. State, 909 So. 2d 981, 985 (…
Authorities Cited
- Sanchez v. State, 909 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- In the Interest of J.G., 655 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Mitchel Andre Insignares v. State, 847 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Collins v. State, 446 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)