Interest of J.R.S. v. State
1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8622, 569 So.2d 1323 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To convict a defendant of criminal mischief, the state must prove the defendant acted with malice, meaning with actual ill will or resentment towards the property owner; malice cannot be presumed from the mere act of causing property damage.
Facts:
- Fifteen-year-old J.R.S. argued with his mother one morning and left for school.
- J.R.S. did not return home that day, and his family reported him as a missing person.
- The next morning, J.R.S. returned to his locked family home and gained entry by 'jimmying' a sliding glass door.
- This action caused minor damage to the door's latch, which his father later repaired with an oversized screw at a cost of ten cents.
- At the time of the incident, J.R.S. was living in his parents' home.
- J.R.S.'s father testified that he had not told his son he could not return, nor had he asked him to leave.
- J.R.S. stated that he only entered the house because he was hungry.
Procedural Posture:
- The state filed a petition for delinquency in a juvenile trial court against J.R.S., alleging criminal mischief and trespass.
- At the adjudicatory hearing, defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing the state failed to prove criminal intent.
- The trial court denied the motion for acquittal.
- The trial court found J.R.S. committed a delinquent act by violating the statutes for criminal mischief and trespass.
- J.R.S. (appellant) appealed the adjudication of delinquency to the Florida First District Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a minor commit the offense of criminal mischief when he forcibly enters his own residence, causing minor damage, for the purpose of shelter and food rather than out of ill will or resentment towards the property's owners (his parents)?
Opinions:
Majority - Joanos, Judge
No. The facts do not constitute the offense of criminal mischief because the state failed to establish the essential element of malice. To commit criminal mischief under Florida Statutes Section 806.13, a person must act 'willfully and maliciously.' The court defined malice as acting with 'actual ill will or resentment towards its owner or possessor.' The circumstances here do not support a finding of malice; J.R.S.'s motive was not to damage his parents' property out of spite, but to gain entry to his own home because he was hungry. The court rejected the state's argument that malice can be presumed from the act of property damage itself, holding instead that the surrounding circumstances determine whether the element of malice is present.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the mens rea (mental state) required for the offense of criminal mischief in Florida. It establishes that the statutory requirement of 'malice' is not satisfied by simply proving that a defendant intentionally damaged property. Instead, the prosecution must prove a specific form of malice: that the defendant acted with ill will or resentment toward the property owner. This precedent prevents the statute from being applied overly broadly to situations where damage is incidental to another, non-malicious purpose, such as a person breaking into their own home after being locked out. The case underscores the importance of examining the defendant's motive and the specific context of the act.
