SCOTT ZANGER, 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.
Scott Zanger was convicted of multiple counts including arson and criminal mischief arising from fires at a shopping plaza. The appellate court reversed two criminal mischief convictions (counts IV and VII) because the State failed to present evidence of the amount of damages required to support felony charges, and remanded for reduction to misdemeanor convictions.
The Court reversed the felony criminal mischief convictions for counts IV and VII because the State failed to present evidence of the amount of damages. Count IV is remanded for reduction to a second degree misdemeanor criminal mischief charge, and count VII is remanded for entry of a judgment of acquittal. All other convictions are affirmed.
[1] A conviction for criminal mischief in excess of $1000 requires proof of the amount of damage in value or cost to the property damaged.
[2] A judgment of acquittal must be granted when the State fails to present sufficient evidence to prove an essential element of the charged offense.
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“In prosecutions for criminal mischief in excess of $1000 — a felony of the third degree — an essential element of the crime is the amount of damage in value or cost to the property damaged.”
Establishes that proof of the dollar amount of damages is a required element for felony criminal mischief charges.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was charged with 10 counts including false or fraudulent insurance claims, second degree arson, burning to defraud an insurer, and 7 counts …
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 Proof Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant was charged with 10 counts: false or fraudulent insurance claim; second degree arson as to all individual businesses located in a shopping plaza; burning to defraud an insurer; and 7 counts of criminal mischief in excess of $1000. After the verdict but before sentencing, the State conceded that it had failed to sufficiently prove the damages for the criminal mischief counts and asked the court to reduce them to misdemeanor convictions. Defendant, again, moved for outright acquittals on counts V through X based on the State’s failure to elicit any evidence as to the amount of any damages. The court granted judgments of acquittal as to counts III, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X as *945charged, and reduced them to misdemean- or criminal mischief. It denied judgment of acquittal as to count IV, the felony criminal mischief count concerning a medical supply store.
We reverse counts IV and VII, and affirm the judgment in all other respects.
The motion for judgment of acquittal on count IV, felony mischief to McCarthy’s supply store, argued that the State failed to offer any evidence of the value or cost of damage to the store, that it was insufficient to convict him of felony criminal mischief The State later conceded the lack of value or cost of proof in a post-verdict motion.
In prosecutions for criminal mischief in excess of $1000 — a felony of the third degree — an essential element of the crime is the amount of damage in value or cost to the property damaged. § 806.13(l)(a), (b)3, Fla. Stat. (2005); see Meenaghan v. State, 601 So.2d 307, 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
The State elicited only a description of the damage to the store. There was no evidence concerning the cost of damages or the value of any property damaged as a result of the fire. At sentencing, the State conceded that as to count IV, “there was no testimony whatsoever on the amount of the damage that was testified to during trial, so that Count [too], if the court is going to be reducing it, should also be reduced to a misdemeanor.” Without evidence of cost, value or amount of damage, the charge of criminal mischief in excess of $1000 was not sufficiently proven. We therefore reverse the conviction as to count IV, and remand to reduce the charge to second degree misdemeanor criminal mischief.
Upon the State’s concession of count VII, which we accept, the judgment of conviction for criminal mischief to a business known as the Bagel Joint and Deli, is reversed and remanded for a judgment of acquittal as to that charge. The State did not present any evidence to prove that this establishment suffered any damage, or that it was even located in the shopping plaza damaged by the fire.
Reverse counts IV and VII; affirm remainder.
FARMER, DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marrero v. State, 71 So. 3d 881 (Fla. 2011)…amount of damage is an essential element of a felony criminal mischief charge. The Fourth District Court of Appeal has explicitly stated that the amount of damage is an essential element of the crime of felony criminal mischief. See Zanger v. State, 42 So. 3d 944, 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“In prosecutions for criminal mischief in excess of $1000 — a felony of the third degree — an essential element of the crime is the amount of damage in value or cost to the property damaged.”) (citing § 816.13(l)(a), (b)3.,…
-
C.H. v. State, 199 So. 3d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…*450] though testimony of loss of market value may be an appropriate measure of damages in a criminal mischief case, this owner’s testimony was too imprecise to constitute competent, substantial evidence of loss of market value. See Zanger v. State, 42 So. 3d 944, 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (stating that “In prosecutions for criminal mischief in excess of $1000 — a felony of the third degree — an essential element of the crime is the amount of damage in value or cost to the property damaged.” (citing § 806.13(l…
-
Elliot v. State, 243 So. 3d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Meenaghan v. State, 601 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)