S.S. v. State

• Decision Date: 07 May 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 2D19-2572
• Citation: 318 So.3d 641
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Parties: S.S., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

318 So.3d 641

S.S., Appellant,

v.STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D19-2572

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 7, 2021.

Howard L. Dimming, II, Public Defender, and Susan M. Shanahan, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Katie Salemi Ashby, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

SMITH, Judge.

Following a bench trial, S.S., a juvenile, was found to have committed one count of criminal mischief. He was adjudicated delinquent, placed in confinement at a residential treatment program, and ordered to complete community service and pay restitution. He appeals his adjudication and disposition, arguing that his motion for judgment of dismissal, presented at the close of the State's case during his adjudicatory hearing, should have been granted because the State failed to meet its burden of establishing a prima facie case that S.S. committed criminal mischief. We agree and therefore reverse S.S.'s adjudication of delinquency and resulting disposition.

On November 26, 2018, S.S. was captured on surveillance video attempting to break into the bicycle ministry operated by Bethesda Ministries (Bethesda), a church-affiliated outreach program. The bicycle ministry is located in a house near Bethesda's church, which is monitored by a video surveillance system twenty-four hours a day. Teataihaea Rogers, the church's outreach program coordinator, upon noticing damage to the outside of the back door, its frame, and doorknob of the bicycle ministry building door, reviewed the church's video surveillance. She observed on the video an individual attempting to break in through the bicycle ministry's door and thereafter contacted law enforcement. Ms. Rogers provided a copy of the video to the responding officer, and from this video the police were able to identify and locate S.S. at a nearby location. S.S. was then detained and questioned by Detective Degagne, who informed him that he had been captured on video attempting to break into the bicycle ministry. S.S.'s fingerprints were later found on the damaged door. Prior to reading S.S. his Miranda ¹ rights, the detective suggested that S.S. write a letter of apology to the ministry, with which S.S. complied. S.S. was not read his Miranda rights until midway through Detective Degagne's questioning. At S.S.'s adjudicatory hearing, the State attempted to utilize in its case-in-chief S.S.'s pre-Miranda statements to law enforcement during questioning, his letter of apology, and the surveillance video. The defense moved to suppress all three items of evidence, which the trial court granted.² Unable to rely on that evidence, the State instead went forward with its case relying solely on the presence of S.S.'s fingerprints taken from the damaged door. S.S.'s fingerprints were analyzed by the State's fingerprint expert, who was employed with the Tampa Police Department. The expert testified that the fingerprints analyzed from the damaged door matched the fingerprints of S.S. After the close of the State's case, S.S. moved for judgment of dismissal as to both the burglary and criminal mischief charges based on the State's failure to establish the prima facie elements of each charge. While the trial court dismissed the burglary charge, it found the State met its burden with regard to the criminal mischief charge, and this appeal followed.

We review the trial court's denial of the motion for judgment of dismissal de novo. T.A.K. v. State, 258 So. 3d 559, 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). "A judgment of dismissal is proper if the State fails to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case." Id. (citing Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.110(k) ). "Sufficient evidence to support an adjudication exists when 'a rational trier of fact could find that the elements of the crime have been established beyond a reasonable doubt.' " Id. (quoting K.W. v. State, 983 So. 2d 713, 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ); see also A.L. v. State, 275 So. 3d 819, 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).

To establish a prima facie case for criminal mischief, the State was required to show that S.S. willfully and maliciously damaged the property of another—here, the bicycle ministry belonging to Bethesda. See § 806.13(1)(a) ; Stinnett v. State, 935 So. 2d 632, 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). The State attempted to make the requisite showing by presenting the testimony of Bethesda's representative Ms. Rogers, who discovered the damage. Ms. Rogers testified that S.S. did not have permission to enter the bicycle ministry and that the break-in attempt caused damage to the door.

The State also presented as a witness a fingerprint expert who testified that the prints found on the damaged door belonged to S.S. Fingerprint evidence alone may be considered direct evidence when the fingerprint is found on an item or property that is not accessible to the general public. See Harris v. State, 160 So. 3d 913, 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) ("[E]vidence of appellant's fingerprints on a jewelry box drawer that the victim received sealed from the factory years earlier, and to which the victim had not given appellant access, was sufficient to meet the State's burden."). However, where the item or property is available to the public and the defendant presents a reasonable hypothesis of innocence, fingerprint evidence alone is insufficient to sustain a conviction. See Leonard v. State, 731 So. 2d 712, 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ; C.P.C. v. State, 179 So. 3d...