Marrero v. State
71 So. 3d 881
| Fla. | 2011Background
- Marrero was charged with felony criminal mischief for crashing through four casino doors, damaging property in Miami-Dade County.
- Trial evidence included a surveillance video but no proved costs of repair or replacement; a facilities director could not quantify damages.
- The State attempted to introduce temporary repair costs but the court sustained an objection; the State offered no evidence of total damages at trial.
- Marrero moved for judgment of acquittal, arguing the State failed to prove a $1,000 threshold; the trial court reserved ruling.
- During trial, the court gave a damages instruction based on thresholds ($200, $1,000) and then gave a life-experience based jury instruction referencing self-evident repairs.
- The Third District affirmed the conviction under a life-experience exception and held the amount of damage was not an essential element.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the damage amount an essential element of felony criminal mischief? | Marrero contends essential damage amount must be proven. | State relies on life-experience to infer threshold damages. | Yes; damage amount is essential; must be proven. |
| May a 'life experience' exception be applied to felony criminal mischief? | State argues life experience can establish threshold damages without explicit proof. | Marrero argues life-experience exception is inapt for mischief and misapplies theft precedent. | No; life-experience exception is improper in criminal mischief. |
| What remedy should apply when the damage amount is not proven? | If damages aren’t proven, conviction should be reduced to a lesser offense. | State seeks affirmation of felony mischief if any injury is shown; no amount proven means failure. | Conviction quashed and remanded to reduce to second-degree misdemeanor criminal mischief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carnley v. State, 82 Fla. 282, 89 So. 808 (Fla. 1921) (essential elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Negron v. State, 306 So.2d 104 (Fla. 1974) (value is essential element for grand theft; framework for essential elements)
- Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So.2d 968 (Fla. 1980) (recedes Negron on other grounds; clarifies essential elements framework)
- Miller v. State, 667 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (reversal when value not proven for mischief thresholds)
- Wingfield v. State, 751 So.2d 134 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (limits on life-experience type reasoning)
- Clark v. State, 746 So.2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (life-experience approach not applicable to mischief)
- S.P. v. State, 884 So.2d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (reiterates limits on life-experience in mischief context)
- T.B.S. v. State, 935 So.2d 98 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (life-experience exception discussed; insufficient evidence to meet threshold)
- A.D. v. State, 866 So.2d 752 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (similar limitations on self-evident repairs arguments)
- Jackson v. State, 413 So.2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (improper broad Jackson interpretation; impossibility prerequisite)