People v. Bray
52 Cal.App.3d 494, 124 Cal. Rptr. 913 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under circumstances where a defendant's prior conviction is ambiguous and state agencies have led the defendant to believe they are not a felon, a good faith and reasonable mistake of fact regarding one's felony status is a valid defense to a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Facts:
- In 1969, James Eugene Bray pled guilty in Kansas to being an accessory after the fact.
- Bray was placed on two years of summary probation, which he successfully completed before moving to California in 1971.
- In 1972, Bray applied to vote in California, disclosed his Kansas conviction to the registrar of voters, and was subsequently allowed to vote.
- In July 1973, Bray applied for a security guard job, disclosed his conviction, and was registered as a guard by the California Bureau of Collection and Investigative Services.
- Later in July 1973, Bray purchased a .38 caliber revolver from a pawn shop after a statutory five-day waiting period, stating on the required forms that he had not been convicted of a felony.
- On several job applications between 1973 and 1974, Bray disclosed the circumstances of his Kansas conviction.
- In July 1974, investigators searched Bray's home with a warrant, and he voluntarily led them to a .38 caliber revolver and a .22 pistol.
Procedural Posture:
- James Eugene Bray was charged in a California trial court with two counts of being a felon in possession of a concealable firearm.
- At trial, Bray's counsel requested jury instructions on the defense of ignorance or mistake of fact.
- The trial court refused to give the requested instructions.
- The jury convicted Bray on both counts.
- The trial court adjudicated the offenses as misdemeanors at sentencing and placed Bray on three years of probation.
- Bray (appellant) appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District (the intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a defendant's lack of knowledge of their status as a felon a valid defense to a charge under Penal Code § 12021 for being a felon in possession of a firearm, requiring the trial court to provide a jury instruction on mistake of fact under unusual circumstances?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown (Gerald), P. J.
Yes. A defendant's lack of knowledge of their felony status can be a valid defense to a felon-in-possession charge, and under the unusual circumstances of this case, the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the defense of mistake of fact was a reversible error. The court reasoned that Penal Code § 12021 is not a strict liability offense; a defendant must have knowledge of the facts that bring them within the statute's proscription. While ignorance of the law is not an excuse, ignorance of fact can be. Here, Bray's status as a felon was a fact he may have been reasonably mistaken about. The court found substantial evidence supporting Bray's claim of mistake, noting that even the prosecutor had difficulty determining if the Kansas conviction was a felony and that multiple state agencies (the registrar of voters, the security guard bureau) had acted in a way that led Bray to believe he was not a felon. Therefore, the jury should have been given the opportunity to consider whether Bray had an honest and reasonable belief that he was not a felon.
Analysis:
This decision carves out an important exception to the general rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse, particularly for status-based offenses like being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court moves the statute away from strict liability by requiring a mens rea (guilty mind) element concerning the defendant's knowledge of their own status as a felon. The ruling establishes that a good-faith, reasonable mistake about one's legal status can operate as a defense, especially when the ambiguity is compounded by the actions of government agencies. This precedent complicates prosecution of such cases by allowing defendants in 'very unusual circumstances' to introduce evidence about their subjective belief and the reasonableness of that belief.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Bray