Court Opinion

ID: 7783842
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-30 21:18:11.272644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:28:15.427744
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing

ROTHENBERG, Judge.
The appellant, M.H. moves for rehearing pursuant to Rule 9.330, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Although this court denies the motion for rehearing, we write briefly to clarify our ruling. In Insignares v. State, 847 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) and Valdes v. State, 510 So.2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), this court found that the defendant lacked the requisite intent to support a conviction for criminal mischief because his intent was to cause harm *5to the person of another. The crime of criminal mischief was never intended to apply where the malice or ill will is directed towards the person. Thus, we held in Insignares and Valdes, because the malice was directed towards the person, rather than the property, the doctrine of transferred intent could not be relied upon to sustain a conviction for criminal mischief. We, therefore, clarify that the holdings in Insignares and Valdes were intended to apply only to those cases in which the prosecution of criminal mischief is depen-dant upon the doctrine of transferred intent, and where the willful act and malice are directed towards the person, which we concluded cannot sustain a conviction for criminal mischief. To the extent that either Insignares or Valdes may be interpreted to suggest that criminal mischief is a specific intent crime, we emphatically hold that it is not.