R.E., 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.
R.E., a juvenile, was convicted as an aider and abettor to felony criminal mischief after a fruit loader was driven into trees at a grove during an unauthorized hunting expedition. The appellate court reversed the conviction, finding insufficient evidence that R.E. possessed the specific intent required for aiding and abetting liability.
The conviction for felony criminal mischief was reversed because the State failed to prove R.E. had the conscious intent for T.C. to drive the fruit loader into the trees. R.E.'s intent was merely for T.C. to move the loader out of the way, which was not inherently criminal, and the tree damage resulted from T.C.'s independent decision after the loader malfunctioned.
[1] A motion for judgment of dismissal tests the legal sufficiency of the State's evidence.
[2] To convict a defendant for a crime committed by another person as an aider or abettor, the State must prove the defendant had a conscious intent that the criminal act be…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In order to convict a defendant for a crime committed by another person, the State must prove that "(1) the defendant had a conscious intent that the criminal act be done and (2) the defendant did some act or said some word which was intended to and which did incite, cause, encourage, assist or advise the other person ... to actually commit the crime."”
Establishes the two-part test required for aiding and abetting liability
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 29, 2008, R.E., T.C., and another person trespassed on IMG Groves property to hog hunt without permission. After hunting, they attempted t…
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
The Appellant, R.E., appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of dismissal on the charge of felony criminal mischief. We agree and reverse his conviction and sentence on this charge.
The manager of IMG Groves was called to the grove on the morning of February 29, 2008, because an unknown person or persons had trespassed on grove property, started up a fruit loader, and driven into a row of fruit trees, knocking the trees over.
The Appellant was charged with, among other things, felony criminal mischief. At the adjudication hearing, T.C., a co-defendant in the case, testified that he, the Appellant, and another person drove to the grove to hog hunt on the night the trees were destroyed. They did not have permission to go onto the property. After they finished hunting, they wanted to leave by a different way than they entered so they would not get caught. When they tried to leave, however, they noticed that there was a fruit loader blocking the path of their truck. T.C. started up the fruit loader and attempted to move it out of the way, but the gas pedal got stuck. T.C. did not know how to stop the fruit loader as it headed in the direction of a ditch, so he “took out some trees to try to stop the machine.” T.C. testified that he was the only one operating the fruit loader. At the conclusion of the State’s case, the Appellant moved for a judgment of dismissal on the criminal mischief charge, which the trial court denied.
The standard of review for a motion for judgment of dismissal is de novo. J.G. v. State, 915 So.2d 274, 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). A motion for judgment of dismissal tests the legal sufficiency of the State’s evidence. J.P. v. State, 855 So.2d 1262, 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). “If, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find the existence of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, sufficient evidence exists to sustain a conviction.” Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792, 803 (Fla.2002).
“A person commits the offense of criminal mischief if he or she willfully and maliciously injures or damages by any means any real or personal property belonging to another .... ” § 806.13(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008). A defendant must possess the specific intent to damage the property of another to be found guilty. J.A. v. State, 684 So.2d 264, 265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); see also Sanders v. State, 950 So.2d 495, 497 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).
The Appellant was charged with criminal mischief as an aider or abetter to T.C. In order to convict a defendant for a crime committed by another person, the State must prove that “(1) the defendant had a conscious intent that the criminal act be done and (2) the defendant did some act or said some word which was intended to and which did incite, cause, encourage, assist or advise the other person ... to actually commit the crime.” Ehrlich v. State, 742 So.2d 447, 450 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Mere knowledge of an offense is not enough, nor is mere presence at the *99scene of the offense. Hill v. State, 958 So.2d 549, 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).
We reverse because the State did not present any evidence to show that the Appellant had the conscious intent for T.C. to drive the fruit loader into the trees. The evidence showed that the Appellant’s intent was for T.C. to move the fruit loader out of the way. This act, by itself, was not criminal mischief because it was not done with the specific intent to cause damage to the property of another. See J.A., 684 So.2d at 265. It was only after T.C. started the fruit loader and it malfunctioned that T.C. decided to run it into the trees. This evidence, in the light most favorable to the State, does not support a conviction for criminal mischief. Accordingly, we reverse the Appellant’s conviction and sentence on the criminal mischief charge.
Reversed.
POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Tovar, 110 So. 3d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…such, whether he or she is or is not actually or constructively present at the commission of such offense. The parties agree on the elements the State needed to prove to establish that a defendant acted as a principal to a crime. See R.E. v. State, 13 So. 3d 97, 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). But it is clear from the verdict that the jury rejected Mr. Tovar’s version of events that he remained in Mr. Robbins’ car while the latter leaped out to resume the fight with Mr. Barkley and Mr. Fox. When two people act in…
-
C.R. v. State, 73 So. 3d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…cquittal, as the motion tests the legal sufficiency of the State’s evidence. W.W. v. State, 993 So. 2d 1182, 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Accordingly, an appellate court reviews the denial of a motion for a judgment of dismissal de novo. R.E. v. State, 13 So. 3d 97, 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). “If the evidence, taken in a light most favorable to the State does not support a conviction, the motion must be granted.” T.L.T. v. State, 53 So. 3d 1100, 1102 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). In L.B. v. State, 700 So. 2d 370, 372 (Fl…
-
T.B. v. State, 145 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…. “If, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find the existence of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, sufficient evidence exists to sustain a conviction.” R.E. v. State, 13 So. 3d 97, 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted). This court has elaborated on the elements of loitering and prowling: The crime of loitering and prowling requires proof of two elements, both of which must be committed in the officer…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2002)
- J.P. v. State, 855 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Misti Ehrlich v. State, 742 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Hill v. State, 958 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Lynch v. United Distribs., Inc., 915 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- J.G. v. State, 915 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- J.A. v. State, 684 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Sanders v. State, 950 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)