Skip to main content

M.H. v. State

Citations

  • 936 So. 2d 1
  • 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 4951
  • 2006 WL 860974

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding criminal mischief is not a specific intent crime, but requires proof of an act that \is willful (intentional) and wrongful (with evil intent that injury or damage will or may be caused)\
  • reiterating “[t]he intent to damage the property of another does not arise by operation of law where the actor’s true intention is to cause harm to the person of another”
  • noting statutory definition of burglary explicitly makes burglary a specific intent .crime
  • noting statutory definition of burglary explicitly makes burglary a specific intent crime
  • willfully driving a stolen scooter through a fence with knowledge that the scooter may be damaged was sufficient evidence to support a conviction of criminal mischief
  • willfully driving a stolen scooter through a fence with knowledge that the scooter may be damaged was sufficient evidence to support a conviction of criminal mischief

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cortiñas, Rothenberg, Schwartz

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.