People v. Lawson
155 Cal. Rptr. 3d 236, 215 Cal.App.4th 108, 2013 D.A.R. 4448 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court does not have a sua sponte duty to instruct a jury on the defense of mistake of fact when the defense serves only to negate the mental state element of the charged crime. Furthermore, the defense of mistake of fact requires a defendant's mistaken belief in a set of circumstances that, if true, would render the otherwise criminal act lawful; simply forgetting does not meet this standard.
Facts:
- On October 28, 2010, Brent Kerrigan Lawson entered a Walmart store in Rancho Cucamonga.
- Lawson went to the customer service and jewelry departments, where he returned several items and received two gift cards.
- He then proceeded to the menswear department and selected a purple hoodie valued at $20.
- Lawson removed the hoodie from its hanger, tucked the sales tag inside, and draped it over his shoulder.
- He walked to a cash register where he selected and paid for a pack of gum and cigarettes.
- With the hoodie still draped over his shoulder, Lawson did not present it for payment and walked out of the store.
- A loss prevention agent, William Gibson, who had been observing Lawson, stopped him immediately outside the store.
- Lawson cooperated with Gibson and returned inside the store without attempting to flee.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury in the trial court found defendant, Brent Kerrigan Lawson, guilty of petty theft.
- The trial court subsequently found that Lawson had four prior convictions for theft or burglary.
- Lawson appealed the judgment of conviction to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court have a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on the defense of mistake of fact where a defendant charged with petty theft claims he simply forgot about an item he was carrying and walked out of a store without paying for it?
Opinions:
Majority - King, J.
No. A trial court does not have a sua sponte duty to instruct on a defense that merely negates an element of the crime, and the defendant's claim of forgetfulness does not qualify as a mistake of fact. The defense of mistake of fact applies only when a defendant holds a mistaken belief in a set of circumstances which, if true, would make the conduct lawful. For example, if Lawson mistakenly believed the hoodie was his own which he had left in the store earlier, taking it would be an innocent act. However, simply forgetting about the hoodie on his shoulder is not a belief in a set of facts that would legalize the act of taking it without payment. The court, citing People v. Anderson, reasoned that defenses like mistake of fact or accident, when used to negate the mens rea (criminal intent), are not special defenses requiring a sua sponte instruction. The jury was properly instructed that to convict for larceny, it must find Lawson intended to permanently deprive the owner of the property. His defense that he 'forgot' was an argument directly negating this intent, which his counsel argued and the jury could consider under the standard instructions. Such a defense requires a 'pinpoint' instruction, which must be requested by the defense and is not required on the court's own motion.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the narrow scope of the mistake of fact defense, distinguishing it from general claims of forgetfulness which merely go to negating criminal intent. It reinforces the holding in People v. Anderson that trial courts do not have a sua sponte duty to instruct on defenses that only serve to negate an element of the charged offense. The ruling places a clear burden on defense counsel to request 'pinpoint' instructions that relate the evidence of forgetfulness or accident to the required mental state, rather than relying on the court to do so independently. This holding limits the grounds for appeal based on instructional error and solidifies the distinction between true affirmative defenses and defenses that simply attack the prosecution's proof of an element.
