Karissa Lou Hopson v. State
Not published per Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court is not required to submit a special mistake-of-fact jury instruction when the defendant's claimed mistaken belief serves only to negate the element of criminal intent, as this defense is already adequately covered by the general jury charge requiring the prosecution to prove all elements of the offense, including criminal intent, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Facts:
- On July 7, 2007, police officers were called to a residence to investigate a suspected burglary in progress.
- Upon arrival, officers found Karissa Lou Hopson standing on the front porch holding a large television.
- Officers observed that several of the house's windows were broken and Hopson had blood on her shirt and hand.
- Hopson initially told officers that she knew the homeowners and had their permission to be on the property.
- The homeowners arrived and stated they did not know Hopson and had not given her permission to enter their home or remove their property.
- Hopson later testified that she had entered the home because she believed another man, Cayetano Padierna, was burglarizing it.
- She claimed she confronted Padierna, who then fled, and she was in the process of returning the television to the house when police arrived.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Texas charged Karissa Lou Hopson with burglary and criminal mischief in the 217th District Court of Angelina County, Texas, a trial court.
- Hopson pleaded not guilty and the case was tried before a jury.
- During the trial, Hopson requested a mistake-of-fact jury instruction, which the trial court refused to submit.
- The jury convicted Hopson of both burglary and criminal mischief.
- Hopson, as appellant, appealed her burglary conviction to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court erred in refusing her requested instruction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err by refusing to submit a defendant's requested mistake-of-fact jury instruction when the defendant claimed her actions were intended to prevent a theft, not commit one?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kent C. Sullivan
No, the trial court did not err by refusing to submit the requested mistake-of-fact instruction. A special defensive instruction is not necessary when it merely denies the existence of an essential element of the State's case. Here, to convict Hopson of burglary, the State was already required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she entered the habitation 'with the intent to commit theft.' The jury charge explicitly instructed the jury that it must acquit Hopson if it had a reasonable doubt about this element. Because Hopson's defense—that she mistakenly believed she was preventing a theft—directly negated the required element of criminal intent, the general charge already required the jury to consider and reject her version of events in order to convict. As established in Bruno v. State, when the jury must necessarily disbelieve the defendant's story to find sufficient evidence to convict under the given charge, a separate mistake-of-fact instruction is redundant and not required.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the principle that a defendant is not automatically entitled to a specific defensive instruction for every claim raised by the evidence. It clarifies the application of the mistake-of-fact defense, holding that when a defendant's alleged mistake directly negates the mens rea (criminal intent) element of the charged offense, a standard jury instruction requiring the state to prove that very element is sufficient. This prevents duplicative and potentially confusing instructions to the jury. The decision distinguishes cases where the mistake involves a more complex scenario, such as the identity of a property owner, which might necessitate a specific instruction, from cases like this one where the defense is a straightforward denial of criminal intent.
