In
Price v. State,
1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the record reveals that Price was caught inside a ransacked home by the homeowner’s daughter, who testified that she heard Price rummaging in the kitchen. At trial Price asserted that he entered the home through an unlocked door because he thought he saw “for sale by owner” and “open house” signs posted in front of the home and was assisting his mother in looking for a house. Two other men, who were with Price, testified that they too saw “for sale” and “open house” signs. Nevertheless, the jury apparently rejected this testimony and found Price guilty of burglary and criminal trespass.
The evidence outlined above was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find Price guilty of all the crimes for which he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jackson v. Virginia,
2. “The trial court must charge the jury on the defendant’s sole defense, even without a written request, if there is some evidence to support the charge. [Cits.]”
Tarvestad v. State,
[i]f [the] defense [was] raised by the evidence, including the defendants’ own statements, the trial court [would have been required to] present the affirmative defense to the jury as part of the case in its charge, even absent a request. The affirmative defense, however, [would not have to] be specifically charged if the case as a whole [had been] fairly presented to the jury.
(Citation omitted.)
Booker v. State,
“A person commits the offense of burglary when, [1] without authority and [2] with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he [3] enters or remains within the dwelling house of another.” OCGA § 16-7-1 (a). Here, Price repeatedly and consistently testified that he saw “for sale” and “open house” signs that led him to believe that he was authorized to enter the house. He also testified that he entered the house through an open door and spoke with his mother on the phone about buying the house while he was examining the inside of the house. Two other witnesses testified about the “for sale” and “open house” signs as well. Because Price presented evidence that he acted under a misapprehension of fact which, if true, would have justified his entry into the house and would have authorized the jury to acquit him of burglary, the trial court was obligated to charge the jury on mistake of fact unless the charge given otherwise fairly presented this issue to the jury. See, e.g., Tarvestad, supra.
The Court of Appeals concluded that a charge on mistake of fact was not authorized by the evidence because (1) Price denied having any intent to commit a theft inside the house, and “[o]ne cannot deny committing an act, while at the same time argue he committed the act by mistake”
(Price,
supra,
The Court of Appeals’ conclusion that a mistake of fact charge was not authorized in light of Price’s denial of having any intent to commit a theft while inside of the house is incorrect. Because Price’s defense was based on the idea that he was authorized to enter the house as an interested buyer, and because this authorization alone would have eliminated one of the essential elements of burglary that the State was required to prove, Price’s intent after he entered the house was irrelevant to his mistake of fact defense to burglary. See
Gray v. State,
Moreover, we cannot say that the trial court’s error in failing to charge the jury on Price’s mistake of fact defense was harmless, as the charge that was given, “as a whole[,] failed to fairly present [Price’s mistake of fact] defense to the jury.”
Tarvestad,
supra, 261
*462
Ga. at 606. As explained previously, the Court of Appeals was incorrect in determining that Price’s “defense went to the intent element of the burglary charge.”
Price,
supra,
Judgment reversed.