T.D.B., 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 court held that the State failed to present sufficient evidence of malice to support an adjudication of delinquency for criminal mischief.
Appellant was accused of damaging a pool by dropping a weight into it. Witnesses saw the incident and appellant admitted to causing damage by accident…
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
Appellant challenges an adjudication of delinquency for criminal mischief. Appellant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of dismissal. We agree and reverse.
The State alleged appellant caused damage to a pool. One State witness testified she saw appellant “playing with” a weight in the pool, and she saw him drop the weight into the pool. A second witness testified that when she confronted appellant, he stated he caused damage to the pool by accident. The State failed to present any evidence that appellant acted with malice, as required by section 806.13, Florida Statutes (2010). Evidence that damage resulted from appellant’s actions alone is insufficient. See J.R.S. v. State, 569 So.2d 1323, 1325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (finding evidence that a juvenile damaged a door lock while attempting to gain entry into his locked home was insufficient to demonstrate malice).
Further, the State’s evidence was entirely circumstantial. The State failed to present evidence that was inconsistent with appellant’s reasonable hypothesis of innocence that he damaged the pool by accident. See State v. Law, 559 So.2d 187, 188 (Fla.1989) (“Where the only proof of guilt is circumstantial, no matter how strongly the evidence may suggest guilt, a conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.”). As such, we reverse.
REVERSED.
BENTON, C.J., and VAN NORTWICK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Ronnie S. LAW, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1989)
- In the Interest of J.R.S. v. State, 569 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)