No, the belief only has to be honest, not reasonable. The crime of theft requires an 'intent to steal.' If you genuinely believe something is abandoned trash or that you have permission, you don't have the intent to steal it from an owner. The court said it's all about what was actually going on in the defendant's mind, not what a so-called 'reasonable person' would have thought. If the jury believes the defendant was honestly mistaken, he's not guilty, even if his mistake seems foolish to others.

Yes, the man is right. For theft, the person has to specifically intend to steal. If he honestly believed the property was abandoned or he had permission, even if that belief was unreasonable, he didn't have that intent. The judge was wrong to say his belief also had to be reasonable. If the jury thinks he honestly believed that, even if it was unreasonable, they should find him not guilty because he didn't have the necessary intent to steal. The reasonableness of his belief can matter in deciding if his belief was genuine, but an unreasonable yet honest belief means he can't be guilty.

Yes, we say the man is right. For theft, a person has to specifically intend to steal. If he honestly believed the property was abandoned or he had permission, even if that belief was unreasonable, he didn't have that intent. The judge was wrong to say his belief also had to be reasonable. If the jury thinks he honestly believed that, even if it was unreasonable, they should find him not guilty because he didn't have the necessary intent to steal. The reasonableness of his belief can matter in deciding if his belief was genuine, but an unreasonable yet honest belief means he can't be guilty.

—if the jury "concluded that defendant in good faith believed that he had the right to take the beams, even though such belief was unreasonable as measured by the objective standard of a hypothetical reasonable man, defendant was entitled to an acquittal since the specific intent required to be proved as an element of the offense had not been established

—for example, the defendant was charged with grand theft for taking four wooden beams from a construction site.

In the case of a specific intent crime, such as forgery, the law does not require that the erroneous belief be reasonable, although the fact that it is unreasonable may cause the jury to disbelieve the defendant's claim that he held it

A mistake-of-fact defense may be established from defendant's good faith belief the property was his, regardless of whether his belief was reasonable

The court explained that " `an honest mistake of fact or law is a defense when it negates a required mental element of the crime

The trial court instructed the jury that the defendant's mistake of fact was a defense to theft only if it was both honest and objectively reasonable.

Courts have concluded that the mistake-of-fact defense applies in cases involving the belief, whether reasonable or unreasonable, that property has been abandoned

A reasonable mistake of fact may be asserted as a defense to a general intent crime, and even an objectively unreasonable mistake of fact may negate a required specific intent or mental state so long as the defendant is acting in good faith

Mistakes of fact that are honest but unreasonable are exculpatory for offenses in which the mens rea is specific intent or knowledge.

If only a reasonable mistake will provide a defense to the charge of theft, the absent-minded but careless restaurant patron will have no defense to a charge of theft.

Yes. A defendant's good-faith belief negates the specific intent for theft, even if the belief is unreasonable. Theft is a specific intent crime which requires proof that the defendant had the intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property. If a defendant genuinely believes the property is abandoned or that they have permission to take it, they lack this specific felonious intent. The court reasoned that while the unreasonableness of a claimed belief is a factor for the jury to consider when determining if the belief was genuinely held, it is not a legal prerequisite for the defense itself. To require the belief to be objectively reasonable would improperly convict a defendant not for having a criminal mind, but for being careless, negligent, or less intelligent than a hypothetical 'reasonable person,' which contradicts the mens rea requirement for specific intent crimes.

Yes. Because theft is a specific intent crime, a defendant's good faith belief that the property was abandoned or that they had permission to take it negates the required mental state, even if that belief is unreasonable. The trial court erred in instructing the jury that the belief must be reasonable. If the jury concludes the defendant in good faith held such a belief, even if unreasonable, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal because the specific intent element has not been established. The reasonableness of the belief may factor into whether the jury thinks the defendant's belief was genuine, but an unreasonable yet honest belief precludes a finding of the requisite intent.

People v. Navarro

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot