L.D.G., 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.
In this juvenile felony criminal mischief case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the disposition, holding that the State presented prima facie evidence that damage to a vehicle exceeded $1,000 based on the owner's testimony regarding insurance payments and deductible amounts paid for repairs.
The Court held that the State adduced prima facie proof of damages exceeding $1,000 through the vehicle owner's competent and substantial testimony regarding insurance payments ($750) and the deductible ($500) paid for actual repairs ($1,250 total). The Court rejected the juvenile's reliance on R.C.R. v. State as inapplicable because that case involved a damaged junked vehicle with minimal fair market value, whereas this case involved a personal vehicle in actual use.
[1] Prima facie proof of damages exceeding $1,000 for criminal mischief can be established by the owner's testimony regarding the total amount paid for repairs, including ins…
[2] Repair costs can establish the amount of damage in a criminal mischief charge, provided the repair costs do not exceed the fair market value of the damaged property.
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 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 charge of criminal mischief to the extent that the repair costs exceed the fair market value of the damaged property.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle regarding how repair costs relate to damage valuations in criminal mischief cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA juvenile was accused of damaging a counselor's personal van by kicking and beating the door repeatedly during a temper tantrum, causing several dent…
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 Felony Criminal Mischief cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, J.
The critical issue in this juvenile disposition on a charge of felony criminal mischief is whether the State adduced prima facie proof of damages exceeding $1,000.1 We hold that it did and affirm the disposition.
The child was accused of damaging a vehicle in a temper tantrum. The owner of the vehicle testified that she kicked and beat the door of the auto repeatedly, leaving it with several dents. The owner testified that her insurance paid $750 for the property damage to the door and that she, as the insured, paid the deductible of $500.2 She elaborated that she personally “handed over to the company who 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 charge of criminal mischief to the extent that the repair costs exceed the fair market value of the damaged .property. In R.C.R., the undisputed evidence showed that the damaged auto had been recently purchased for $500 as “junked,” without an engine or wheels, placed on blocks, with the idea of restoring. In this case, however, the vehicle was the personal van of one of the counselors who had accompanied the young girls living at a residence hall to a July 4th outing. R.C.R. is simply inapposite to this case.
Affirmed.
STONE and MAY, JJ., concur. . "If the damage is $1,000 or greater ... it is a felony of the third degree § 806.13(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2006).
. We disagree with the defense that this testimony was inadmissible hearsay. For one thing, the testimony did not involve an out-of-court statement but rather an act in which she was a participant. As a party to the insurance contract, the owner was competent to testify to any amount paid by the insurer under the property damage coverage to repair the vehicle door. Moreover, the amount paid by a property damage insurer — together with the deductible — is surely entitled to a high degree of reliability as to the value of the damage. Such evidence is well beyond speculation or opinion and constitutes direct evidence of money actually paid for the damage.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanchez v. State, 101 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…of fair market value is sufficient where it is supported by “evidence establishing the condition, quality, age, or depreciation of the item at the time it was stolen.” K.W. v. State, 983 So. 2d 713, 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); see also L.D.G. v. State, 960 So. 2d 767, 767-68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Jackson v. State, 23 So. 3d 206, 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (giving preference to a cash register receipt totaling the stolen items over testimony from store manager). By contrast, where “the value of the property is estim…
-
J.A. v. State, 247 So. 3d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…degree misdemeanor criminal mischief. Id. at 448.2 As in C.H., the owner's testimony here was not inadmissible hearsay as it did not involve an out-of-court statement, but rather an act in which the owner was a participant. See also L.D.G. v. State, 960 So. 2d 767, 767-68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (finding that the victim's testimony that she paid $1250-consisting of her $500 deductible and insurer's payment of $750-to repair car door was not inadmissible hearsay and was sufficient to establish damage in excess of…1 / 2
-
J.A. v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- R.C.R. v. State, 916 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)