Defendant appeals his conviction for burglary. Held:
1. The trial court erred in failing to charge on mistake of fact, Code Ann. § 26-705 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249,1270; 1969, pp. 857,859). In response to state’s evidence tending to show that defendant entered a store and a business office in the rear thereof with intent to commit a robbery or theft therein, defendant testified that he entered the rear of the store and opened the door to the business office because he wanted to relieve himself and thought the door led to a restroom. This evidence was defendant’s sole defense and was sufficient to require a charge of the defense of mistake of fact. Defendant did not request the charge, nor object to its omission from the charge, but did reserve the right to object to any of the charges at the appropriate time.
“[Mistake of fact] was the defendant’s sole defense and excuse. Hence, the failure to give a charge on the subject, even without request, was error. [Cits.]”
Henderson v. State,
“Appellant’s failure to object to the court’s omission to charge
*715
here raises against him neither the principle of induced error nor that of waiver. Compare
White v. State,
2. Defendant enumerates that the trial court erred in overruling his demurrer to the indictment, contending that it alleged that the defendant entered the store “with intent to commit a felony or theft therein,” without specifying the felony intended. Although there may have been merit in the contention, see
Ealey v. State,
3. The remaining enumerations are either mooted by the foregoing findings, are not meritorious, or are not likely to recur at a retrial.
Judgment reversed.
