99 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 160 Cal.Rptr. 692
Defendant was charged with grand theft under Penal Code section 487.1 for stealing four wooden beams from a construction site.1
The record on appeal sets forth limited facts.2 The state of the evidence was such that the jury could have found that the defendant believed either that the beams had been abandoned as worthless and the owner had no objection to his taking them or that they had substantial value, had not been abandoned and he had no right to take them.3 After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of petty theft, a lesser but necessarily included offense, and he appeals that conviction.4
At trial, defendant proposed two jury instructions which the trial court refused.5 Instead, the court instructed the jury using modified versions of the instructions.6
Modified Defendant's A required a reasonable and good faith belief that the property has been abandoned or discarded by the true owner.7 Modified Defendant's B required a reasonable and good faith belief that he has the consent or permission of the owner to take the property and added that if the jury has a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the required criminal intent, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal.8
Whether the defendant should be acquitted if there is a reasonable doubt that he had a good faith belief that the property had been abandoned or that he had the permission of the owner to take the property, even if that belief was unreasonable?9
When a crime requires a specific intent, an honest mistake of fact negating that intent provides a complete defense, regardless of whether the mistake was reasonable.10 The prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant actually possessed the requisite criminal intent rather than relying on an objective standard of what a reasonable person would have believed.11
Yes. Applying this rule to the established facts, the jury could have found that the defendant believed the beams had been abandoned or that he had permission to take them.12 The trial court's modified instructions required the belief to be reasonable in addition to being held in good faith.13 This was error because if the defendant held a good faith belief, even an unreasonable one, he lacked the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.14
The evidence permitted the jury to conclude the defendant lacked that intent, and the instructions improperly allowed conviction based on imputed knowledge rather than actual belief.15
The judgment is reversed.16