Major FL Court REVERSES Criminal Mischief Conviction… Here’s Why

March 5, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

Case Summary

Florida’s 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled that a defendant was not guilty of criminal mischief for breaking a glass door after he shoved someone through it – making clear that the doctrine of “transferred intent” does not apply in criminal mischief cases.

• CASE: Walker v. State, 154 So.3d 448 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2014)
• Charge(s): Burglary with a Battery, Criminal Mischief
• Outcome: Criminal mischief conviction REVERSED, as Walker didn’t willfully and maliciously damage property.

Criminal Mischief Charges in Florida

In Florida, criminal mischief (Fla. Stat. 806.13) is a very serious criminal offense. Depending on the extent of the damage allegedly caused to property willfully and maliciously by the defendant, they may face either misdemeanor or felony charges. 

For someone to be guilty of criminal mischief, the State must prove all of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The defendant injured or damaged real or personal property
• The property injured or damaged belong to another person
• The injury was done willfully and maliciously, without legal justification or excuse

Per W.F. v. State, 979 So.2d 1171 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2008), “willful” means intentional, knowing, and purposeful. “Malicious” means wrongful, intentional, 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.

Criminal mischief has one of the most complicated penalty schemes of any offense in the state of Florida. As a general rule, the severity of the punishment for criminal mischief increases with the financial value of the damages. Under Fla. Stat. 806.13, the following penalty scheme applies:

• If the damage is under $200, criminal mischief is a second-degree misdemeanor (up to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine)
• If damage is between $200 and $1,000, criminal mischief is a first-degree misdemeanor (up to 1 year in jail and a $1,000 fine)
• If damage is greater than $1,000, criminal mischief 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.) and totals over $200, criminal mischief is a third-degree felony 

Important: If the charge is more serious than second-degree misdemeanor criminal mischief, a key element of establishing a defendant caused more than $200 in damages is providing proof at trial of the monetary amount of the damages. 

If the State fails to prove the amount of damage, but does prove willful and malicious damage was done by the defendant to property of another, a conviction will be automatically reduced to second-degree misdemeanor criminal mischief. M.H. v. State, 936 So.2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)

Sometimes, a criminal mischief charge will be brought despite the fact that the “theory” of the case is that a defendant targeted a person, rather than property. An example of this would be a defendant firing a gun at someone, but the projectile misses and breaks a car window (Stinnett v. State, 935 So.2d 632 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2006)).

If that bullet hit another person (not property) and killed them, the defendant would be guilty of murder (or at least, manslaughter). This is because the crime would be governed by the doctrine of transferred intent. If C intends to commit the murder of A (e.g. murder) and B ends up killed instead, C is guilty of murdering B even if he did not intend to (as his mens rea “transfers”).

However, this does not apply to property (e.g. criminal mischief cases). For example, if a person intends to punch another during a fight and breaks a car window, they are NOT guilty of criminal mischief for damaging that window. Because the “damage” was not caused to a person and was done unintentionally, criminal mischief has not been committed.

In a major case, Florida’s 3rd District Court of Appeal (Miami’s highest court) heard an appeal from a defendant who was charged with burglary with a battery and criminal mischief. Though his guilt of the burglary-battery was quite clear, the basis for the criminal mischief charge was questionable (at best).

The defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal (MJOA) at trial, arguing that the evidence did not support a finding that he “willfully and maliciously” damaged the glass door that was broken when he shoved the victim through it. However, the trial judge denied the MJOA request – and the defendant was convicted.

Appealing to Florida’s 3rd DCA, the defendant argued the trial judge erred as a matter of law in denying the MJOA. The 3rd DCA agreed – finding he did not commit criminal mischief. 

Let’s take a look at that case – Walker v. State, 154 So.3d 448 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2014), and discuss what it means for defendants charged with criminal mischief in Florida.

KEY CASE: Walker v. State, 154 So.3d 448 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2014)

In Walker, the defendant (Walker) was charged with and convicted of burglary with a battery and criminal mischief. According to the 3rd DCA, the facts were as follows:

• Walker had an altercation with a security guard at his apartment complex
• During the altercation, Walker pushed the security guard (Tilwaites) into the apartment complex’s guardhouse
• Tilwaites fell back and landed against a glass door, which completely shattered

Citing M.H. v. State, 936 So.2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), Walker moved for a judgment of acquittal (MJOA) on the criminal mischief charge at the conclusion of the State’s case. He argued that the evidence didn’t prove (and the State did not even truly argue) that he “willfully and maliciously” damaged the glass door in the guardhouse. 

Since the damage was an unintentional consequence of the shove, Walker asserted his “malicious intent” towards the alleged victim could not be transferred to the glass door (property). However, the trial judge denied Walker’s MJOA request, and he was convicted.

Appealing to the 3rd DCA, Walker reiterated his argument that he was not guilty of criminal mischief as a matter of law. The 3rd DCA agreed, reversing the conviction and writing:

“Significantly, this Court also recognized in M.H. that “the doctrine of transferred intent cannot sustain a conviction for criminal mischief.” 936 So.2d at 4. In other words, the criminal mischief statute requires that when a defendant acts with malice toward another person, rather than toward property, that malice does not transfer to the property.”

“Given this, we find that the trial court erred in denying Walker’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of criminal mischief. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the State failed to present competent, substantial evidence that Walker acted with malice toward the property at issue (the glass door), rather than toward Tilwaites. The evidence at trial established that Walker pushed Tilwaites. As a result of being pushed, Tilwaites landed against a glass door and the glass door shattered. Even viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the circumstances surrounding Walker’s conduct establish only that he acted with malice toward the person of Tilwaites. Because the malice directed toward Tilwaites cannot be transferred to the glass door, M.H., 936 So.2d at 4, the evidence presented by the State was insufficient to sustain a conviction of criminal mischief.  … As a result, Walker’s conviction and sentence for criminal mischief must be reversed and the matter remanded for his discharge on this count.”

Put simply, since there was no “competent, substantial” evidence that Walker acted with malice towards the glass door, he was not guilty of criminal mischief as a matter of law (even though his “malicious” act towards the victim caused the damage).

In sum, Walker v. State, 154 So.3d 448 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2014) marks a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding criminal mischief and “transferred intent.” Florida’s 3rd DCA found that:

• Walker did intend to push the victim, but he did not intend to break the glass door that shattered when the victim fell on it
• As he did not intend to damage the door and it was not obvious the door would shatter when he shoved the victim, Walker did not act “willfully and maliciously” towards it
• This made Walker not guilty of criminal mischief as a matter of law, requiring reversal of his conviction

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Walker v. State, 154 So.3d 448 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2014), as it is a strong motion for judgment of acquittal case if a defendant is accused of criminal mischief based on “transferred intent.”

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