Major FL Court: Accident CANNOT Support Criminal Mischief Conviction

February 9, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

Florida’s 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that a defendant accidentally discharging his firearm, causing damage to a car window, was not guilty of criminal mischief for damaging that window.

In Florida, criminal mischief (Fla. Stat. 806.13) is a very serious offense.

Criminal mischief occurs when someone willfully and maliciously damages the property of another by any means, without their consent or lawful justification. For someone to be guilty, the State must prove all of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The defendant willfully and maliciously injured or damaged the real or personal property of the victim
• The defendant’s actions were the direct cause of the damage
• The property belonged to someone other than the defendant
• The damage occurred against the will of the victim

The severity of the penalties someone may face if found guilty of criminal mischief in Florida depends on the extent of the property damage allegedly caused.

Under Fla. Stat. 806.13, the following potential punishments apply:

• If the damage inflicted is less than $200, the offense is considered a second-degree misdemeanor (up to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine)
• If the damage is between $200 and $1,000, the offense is considered a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail and a $1,000 fine
• If the damage is above $1,000, the offense is a third-degree felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine
• If the damage is to a historical monument or religious facilities (church, synagogue, etc.), the offense is a third-degree felony (if the damage is over $200)

A key aspect of any criminal mischief prosecution is proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted “willfully and maliciously” in causing the property damage. If this was purely an accident, someone is not guilty of criminal mischief as a matter of law – even if they were acting carelessly (e.g. negligently) immediately prior to the alleged commission of the offense.

According to M.H. v. State, 936 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2006) and the Florida Bar’s standard jury instructions on criminal mischief:

• “Willfully” means intentionally, knowingly, and purposely
• “Maliciously” means wrongfully, intentionally, without legal justification or excuse, and with the knowledge that injury or damage will or may be caused to another person or the property of another person.

Despite the fact that Florida law is quite clear that a criminal mischief conviction cannot stand if the damage resulted from an accident, individuals will sometimes be prosecuted for this offense even if they did not specifically intend to damage someone else’s property.

For example, in M.H. v. State, 936 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2006), a juvenile rode a stolen scooter through a hazardous area – predictably resulting in damage to the scooter. 

Though the juvenile did not “intend” to damage the scooter, the 3rd DCA (Miami area) affirmed his conviction since he “willfully and maliciously” engaged in a course of action that he knew or reasonably should have known would damage the scooter.

Due to rulings like M.H., some defendants in Florida may face prosecution for criminal mischief even in the absence of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that they specifically intended to cause property damage. 

Most jurisdictions in Florida (including the 1st DCA, covering Tallahassee and North Florida) reject this and require proof of specific intent to damage (e.g. intentionally acting with malice towards the property itself). J.R.S. v. State, 569 So.2d 1323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). To learn more, click here.

One thing Florida’s courts unanimously agree upon, however, is that criminal mischief does not occur when a defendant: 

• Unintentionally damages the property of another (e.g. no intent), and 
• The damage did not stem from “willful and malicious” conduct that the defendant knew or should have known would produce the damage (like in M.H. v. State)

An important case illustrating this principle is Stinnett v. State, 935 So.2d 632 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2006). Let’s look at Stinnett and what it means for defendants accused of criminal mischief in Florida.

KEY CASE: Stinnett v. State, 935 So.2d 632 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2006)

In Stinnett, the defendant (Stinnett) was accused of aggravated assault and criminal mischief. He was convicted on both counts, and appealed.

At trial, it was revealed that Stinnett and two brothers went to celebrate New Year’s at a Tampa nightclub. Around midnight, Stinnett and one of the brothers were told to leave after getting into a scuffle with other partygoers.

As Stinnett and the brother (Prescott) retreated to the parking lot, they continued arguing with other men in the parking lot. Stinnett eventually went to his car and fired what he characterized as a “warning shot” from his pistol into the air. 

Stinnett then went to put away his pistol as he was sitting in the car – but his foot slipped off the clutch, and the gun accidentally discharged (according to Stinnett). The State claimed the second shot was intentional and aimed at one of the men Stinnett was arguing with – but Stinnett missed and the bullet broke a nearby car window.

After he was found guilty of aggravated assault and criminal mischief (for the damage to the car window), Stinnett appealed to the 2nd DCA. Stinnett claimed that he was not guilty of criminal mischief as a matter of law, reasoning:

• If the shot was aimed at the alleged victim, he did not intend to hit the car and damage it, so could not be guilty of criminal mischief (e.g. since it was an accident)
• If the shot was an accidental discharge, he was not guilty of criminal mischief because he did not intend to fire the gun (or damage the vehicle)

Florida’s 2nd District Court of Appeal (Greater Tampa area) agreed with Stinnett and reversed his criminal mischief conviction. The 2nd DCA wrote:

“To be guilty of this crime the defendant must specifically intend to damage or destroy the property of another. Sanchez v. State, 909 So.2d 981, 985 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (tracing evolution of modern crime from common law offense). Moreover, an intent to damage the property of another does not arise by operation of law where the defendant’s true intention is to cause harm to the person of another. In re J.G., 655 So.2d 1284, 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); see also H.F. v. State, 927 So.2d 163, 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) … Here, Stinnett’s second shot struck a car, thus damaging the property of another. The evidence showed either that Stinnett fired the shot accidentally or that the shot hit the car when it missed the person Stinnett was attempting to shoot. Either way, there was no evidence that Stinnett intended to damage the car. Accordingly, we reverse the conviction for criminal mischief.”

In sum, Stinnett v. State, 935 So.2d 632 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2006) is a significant development in Florida case law on criminal mischief. The 2nd DCA found that:

• If Stinnett’s bullet was aimed at a person, the damage it caused to a nearby vehicle was unintentional
• If Stinnett discharged his firearm by accident, the damage the bullet caused to a nearby vehicle was unintentional
• Neither theory supported a finding that Stinnett willfully (intentionally) and maliciously damaged the vehicle
• Since this damage was the basis for Stinnett’s criminal mischief conviction, the 2nd DCA reversed it 

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Stinnett v. State, 935 So.2d 632 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2006), as it reinforces that criminal mischief requires intent on the part of a defendant to damage the property of another. Accidental damage cannot support a criminal mischief charge (or conviction) as a matter of law.

In a criminal mischief case, it is vital to have the best representation possible, as this charge can carry heavy criminal and financial penalties. Don Pumphrey Jr. and the attorneys at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting to win for clients across the state of Florida.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting criminal charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share