In People v. Hendrix REV. GTD. 1/20/21 S265668 (B298952; 55 Cal.App.5th 1092) the defendant told police that he entered the victim’s backyard and tried to force entries believing this to be his cousin Trevor’s house. The reviewing court acknowledged that appellant if subjectively believed that he was at Trevor’s house, the jury could, in theory, have found that he did not have the mental state required for burglary. (Citing and quoting People v. Navarro (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 10-11 and People v Russell (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1426-1427.) Accordingly, the court of appeal concluded that the judge erred by instructing the jury that such the defendant’s mistaken belief had to be objectively reasonable.
However, applying the state error Watson standard of prejudice, the court held that the error was harmless.
The CSC granted Hendrix’s petition for review to consider the following issue:
Did the Court of Appeal err in holding an instructional error on the defense of mistake of fact harmless? In the circumstances of this case, which standard of prejudice applies to an error in instructing on the defense of mistake of fact: that of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 or that of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18?
Cf., Chapman or Watson: What is the Standard of Prejudice For Misinstruction on Defense Theory?
March 23rd, 2015
