North FL’s Highest Court REVERSES Juvenile Criminal Mischief Conviction – Here’s Why

April 23, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Juvenile Offenses Social Share

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that a juvenile, who damaged a pool after dropping a weight into it while “playing” with the weight, was not guilty of criminal mischief as a matter of law.

CASE: T.D.B. v. State, 85 So.3d 1212 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)

Charge(s): Criminal Mischief

Outcome: Adjudication of delinquency REVERSED, as the juvenile defendant did not willfully and maliciously damage a pool that he dropped a weight into.

Criminal Mischief in Florida

In Florida, criminal mischief (Fla. Stat. 806.13) is a very serious offense. It occurs when a person 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 depends on the extent of the 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)

In a criminal mischief prosecution, the most frequently disputed issue is whether the defendant WILLFULLY and MALICIOUSLY damaged the property – rather than doing so carelessly or accidentally. For more on this, click here.

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

Florida’s courts are split as to whether criminal mischief is considered a general or specific intent crime. While some courts hold that a defendant must specifically “target” another’s property for damage or destruction, others have found a defendant may be guilty of criminal mischief if they intentionally acted in a manner that was likely to bring about the resulting damage.

For example, in M.H. v. State, 936 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2006), a juvenile rode the scooter of another person (without their consent) through a hazardous area, resulting in damage to it. M.H. was accused of criminal mischief and adjudicated delinquent.

Though M.H. argued on appeal to Florida’s 3rd DCA (Miami’s highest court) that he DID NOT intentionally damage the scooter, the 3rd DCA rejected his claim that it was necessary to prove this for M.H. to be guilty of criminal mischief. 

The 3rd DCA found that because M.H. engaged in a course of conduct that was likely to produce the damage to the scooter that resulted, he was still guilty of acting “willfully and maliciously” to “injure” the scooter. 

However, other Florida courts do not read the criminal mischief statute as broadly. One of those courts is the 1st District Court of Appeal (Tallahassee and North FL’s highest court). In J.R.S. v. State, 569 So. 2d 1323, 1325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), a juvenile’s adjudication of delinquency in a criminal mischief case was REVERSED after the court narrowly read Fla. Stat. 806.13.

There, the juvenile defendant sought to gain reentry to his home because he was hungry. As the back door was locked, he broke it open. Because he was feuding with his parents at the time, law enforcement was called, and J.R.S. was charged with criminal mischief (for damaging the door).

He was adjudicated delinquent, and on appeal, argued he did not act MALICIOUSLY against the property (e.g. the door). The 1st DCA agreed with him and reversed his conviction. The 1st DCA found that although J.R.S. intentionally broke open the door, he did not do so out of “malice.” To learn more, click here.

Though some courts read the criminal mischief statute more narrowly (or broadly) than others, there is consensus about the fact that a PURE ACCIDENT is insufficient as a matter of law to establish someone’s guilty of criminal mischief. 

Even if someone was “negligent” (e.g. careless) and property damage resulted, they’re not guilty of criminal mischief as a matter of law (although they may be exposed to civil liability). Stinnett v. State, 935 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)

This time-honored principle was reinforced by Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal (North FL’s highest court) in a major ruling. There, a juvenile defendant was “playing” with a weight – and at some point, dropped it in a pool. The juvenile was charged with criminal mischief because of the damage caused to the pool.

At trial, the juvenile moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the State did not present any evidence he acted with “malice” towards the pool (citing J.R.S. v. State, 569 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)). The trial judge DENIED the juvenile’s MJOA request – and ultimately, adjudicated him delinquent (e.g. found him guilty).

On appeal to the 1st DCA, the juvenile reiterated his argument that he was not guilty of criminal mischief as a matter of law, as there was no evidence he acted maliciously. The 1st DCA agreed and REVERSED the adjudication of delinquency.

Let’s take a deeper look at that case – T.D.B. v. State, 85 So.3d 1212 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) – and discuss what it means for those accused of criminal mischief in Florida.

KEY CASE: T.D.B. v. State, 85 So.3d 1212 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)

In T.D.B., a juvenile defendant (T.D.B.) was charged with and adjudicated delinquent of criminal mischief. At a bench trial (where the judge acts as the finder of fact), the following was revealed:

• T.D.B. was “playing” with a weight in the pool belonging to the alleged victims
• T.D.B. dropped the weight into the pool
• The weight struck either the wall or floor of the pool, causing damage
• T.D.B. was charged with criminal mischief
• At T.D.B.’s trial, a State witness testified T.D.B. told her the damage was “an accident”
• T.D.B. moved for a judgment of acquittal at the conclusion of the State’s case, arguing there was no evidence he acted willfully and maliciously to damage the pool
• The trial judge denied the MJOA request, and T.D.B. was adjudicated delinquent

On appeal to the 1st DCA, T.D.B. argued that the trial judge erred as a matter of law by denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal. He noted that the State offered no evidence that he acted willfully and maliciously when he dropped the weight and damaged the pool.

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal (Tallahassee and North FL’s highest court) AGREED and REVERSED T.D.B.’s adjudication of delinquency. The 1st DCA wrote:

“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.”

In sum, T.D.B. v. State, 85 So.3d 1212 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) marks a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding criminal mischief. The 1st DCA found that:

• The State failed to disprove the damage to the pool was caused by accident
• The fact that T.D.B. caused the damage was insufficient for him to be guilty of criminal mischief
• The State failed to provide any evidence that the damage to the pool was WILLFUL and MALICIOUS
• Because of that, T.D.B.’s adjudication of delinquency required reversal

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of T.D.B. v. State, 85 So.3d 1212 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), as it makes clear that a simple “accident” CANNOT support a criminal mischief conviction.

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