People v. Hussain
179 Cal. Rptr. 3d 679
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Alim Hussain operated A-TEK Automotive; DMV records show Schools Financial Credit Union (Schools) was legal owner of a 1988 Toyota Land Cruiser that came into defendant’s shop and was later transferred after a lien sale.
- Lien sale documents submitted by defendant lacked a postal receipt proving notice to Schools; DMV mistakenly transferred title to defendant, who then sold the vehicle to the Nasrudins.
- Investigators found other suspicious activity at A-TEK (a dismantled Audi), and witnesses had conflicting testimony on repairs, sale price, and paperwork; defendant claimed Hodges prepared lien paperwork and mistakenly mis-addressed notice that was returned unopened.
- Jury convicted defendant of grand theft of an automobile (Pen. Code § 487(d)(1)) but acquitted him of chop-shop operation, theft by false pretenses, and perjury; court sentenced him to probation with jail time.
- On appeal defendant argued the trial court erred by not instructing sua sponte on the claim-of-right defense (CALCRIM No. 1863), that counsel was ineffective for not requesting it, and that evidence was insufficient to show intent; the Court of Appeal reversed for ineffective assistance but held there was sufficient evidence to permit retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to instruct sua sponte on claim of right | Trial court erred by failing to give CALCRIM No. 1863 because substantial evidence supported the defense | Court should have instructed jury sua sponte on claim-of-right when evidence supported it | No sua sponte duty: claim of right negates mental state only, so under People v. Anderson the court need not give the instruction absent a request |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to request CALCRIM No. 1863 | Any omission was harmless because credibility issues would have led jury to reject claim of right | Counsel was deficient for not requesting the core-mounted instruction while arguing claim of right in closing; failure prejudiced defendant | Counsel was ineffective: failing to request the pattern instruction was objectively unreasonable and prejudicial; conviction reversed |
| Prejudice standard (Strickland) applied | No reasonable probability of a different result due to credibility problems and other evidence | Reasonable probability the jury would have acquitted on grand theft if properly instructed on claim of right | Court finds a reasonable probability of a different outcome; prejudice established under Strickland |
| Sufficiency of evidence of intent to permanently deprive (retrial barred?) | Evidence supported conviction; acquittal on related counts does not compel reversal | Acquittal on false pretenses indicates lack of intent to defraud; argues insufficient evidence | Court holds evidence was sufficient to support specific intent to deprive; reversal was for ineffective assistance only, so retrial permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Anderson, 51 Cal.4th 989 (trial courts need not instruct sua sponte on defenses that only negate mental state)
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (when court must instruct on defenses supported by evidence)
- People v. Saille, 54 Cal.3d 1103 (distinguishing pinpoint instructions from sua sponte duties)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (constitutional standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v. Tufunga, 21 Cal.4th 935 (claim-of-right negates felonious intent for theft)