74 Cal.App.5th 784
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- A 2005 Honda Accord was stolen from a towing yard; keys to multiple cars were taken from the site.
- On Sept. 8, 2019 deputies stopped a matte-black Honda with a mismatched rear plate; the assigned plate was found in the back seat and bolt cutters and a drill were found in the trunk.
- Defendant Richard Speck was driving; he had the Honda key and told deputies he had borrowed the car from a friend, Jason (Rakellah), and was transporting a pregnant passenger to an appointment.
- Speck testified he believed he had Rakellah’s permission to use the car and did not know it was stolen; the trial court found substantial evidence supporting a mistake-of-fact defense.
- The trial court refused defendant’s requested CALCRIM No. 3406 instruction (mistake of fact) as unnecessary/duplicative; a jury convicted Speck of Vehicle Code §10851 and Penal Code §496d; sentence imposed and appeal followed.
- The Court of Appeal held the trial court erred in refusing CALCRIM No. 3406 and that the error was prejudicial under People v. Watson, reversing the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct on mistake of fact (CALCRIM No. 3406) | Instruction unnecessary or duplicative; existing element instructions and arguments sufficed; any error harmless | Substantial evidence showed Speck actually believed he had owner consent from Rakellah; CALCRIM 3406 required when evidence supports mistake of fact, and for specific-intent/knowledge crimes the belief need only be actual | Reversed: court erred in refusing CALCRIM 3406; error was not harmless because the instruction could have negated intent/knowledge and likely affected the verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Berryman, 6 Cal.4th 1048 (de novo review of refusal to give requested instruction)
- In re Jennings, 34 Cal.4th 254 (mistake of fact that disproves required intent is a defense)
- People v. Lawson, 215 Cal.App.4th 108 (mistake must make act innocent to negate offense element; instruction required on request when substantial evidence supports it)
- People v. Russell, 144 Cal.App.4th 1415 (failure to instruct on supported mistake-of-fact defense can be prejudicial; actual belief can negate knowledge/intent)
- People v. Jaramillo, 16 Cal.3d 752 (Vehicle Code §10851 is a specific intent crime)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (standard for reviewing prejudice from instructional error)