Hendrix

People v. Hendrix

Good Law
13 Cal. 5th 933·297 Cal. Rptr. 3d 278·515 P.3d 22
Supreme Court of CaliforniaAugust 22, 2022S265668California6,879 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kruger, J.

Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J.

Early one October morning, defendant Isaiah Hendrix walked up to a house in Oxnard, knocked on the door, and rang the doorbell. Hearing no response, Hendrix walked around the house to the backyard, opened a screen door, and attempted to open the locked glass door behind it. Then, failing that, Hendrix sat down on a bench and stayed there. Hendrix was sitting on the bench when police arrived. Hendrix told police he was there to visit his cousin, but Hendrix’s cousin did not, in fact, live in the house. Hendrix was charged with burglary. At trial, the court gave the jury a standard mistake of fact instruction, which informed jurors that they should not convict Hendrix if they determined he lacked criminal intent because he mistakenly believed a relevant fact — namely, that the house belonged to his cousin and not to a stranger. But the instruction specified that the mistake in question had to be a reasonable one. All parties now acknowledge this was error: To negate the specific criminal intent required for burglary, a defendant’s mistaken belief need not be reasonable, just genuinely held. The question before us is whether the instructional error…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.