that are fundamental: 1) errors committed in death penalty cases; and 2) instances where the “evidence is totally insufficient as a matter of law to establish the commission of a crime.” Id. at 230. The instant case falls within the latter category as we will next explain. Three elements must be sufficiently established to prove the crime of criminal mischief: 1) the defendant injured or damaged specified property; 2) the property belonged to another; and 3) the injury or damage was inflicted willfully and maliciously. § 806.13, Fla. Stat. (2004); see also Insignares v. State, 847 So.2d 1063, 1064 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (acknowledging that the offense of criminal mischief requires that the defendant intend to damage the property of another); C.B. v. State, 721 So.2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (<HOLDING>). The offense of criminal mischief derives from
holding that an allegation as to the time of the offense is not an essential element of the offense charged in the indictment and within reasonable time limits proof of any date before the return of the indictment and within the statute of limitations is sufficient holding that a similar exclusion denies coverage for property damage to the particular part of the real property that is the subject of the insureds work at the time of the damage if the damage arises out of those operations holding that the specific intent to deprive the owner permanently of his property is an essential element of the crime of larceny holding that damage to the property of another is an essential element of the offense of criminal mischief holding dollar amount is not an essential element