## Facts

- In 1969, James Eugene Bray pled guilty in Kansas to being an accessory after the fact and received two years’ probation, which he completed.
- After moving to California, Bray disclosed the Kansas matter when registering to vote; he was permitted to register and vote, reinforcing his belief he was not a disqualifying felon.
- Bray later applied for part-time security work and disclosed the Kansas matter; he was registered as a guard by a state agency.
- Bray purchased a .38 caliber revolver for armed guard work and, on a required form, stated he had not been convicted of a felony while explaining the Kansas incident.
- Police found two concealable firearms at Bray’s home, and the prosecution charged him with two counts of being a felon in possession of a concealable firearm under California Penal Code § 12021, treating the Kansas conviction as the predicate felony.
- At trial, Bray requested a jury instruction on ignorance or mistake of fact based on his asserted belief that he was not a felon; the court refused.
- A jury convicted Bray on both counts; the trial court later reduced the offenses to misdemeanors and granted probation, and Bray appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether, in a prosecution under Penal Code § 12021, a defendant’s reasonable belief that he is not a felon may constitute a mistake of fact negating the required mental state.
2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury on mistake of fact where evidence supported that defense.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the convictions.
- The court held that Bray’s asserted mistake about his felony status could constitute a mistake of fact that, if believed by the jury, would negate criminal intent under the statute.
- Because evidence supported the defense, the trial court was required to instruct the jury on mistake of fact; the failure to do so required reversal.

## Legal Principles

- When an offense is not treated as strict liability as to a material element, criminal liability requires a mental state that can be defeated by a mistake of fact negating intent.
- Mistake of fact may be a defense when it shows the defendant lacked knowledge of facts necessary to form criminal intent.
- In some circumstances, uncertainty about one’s own disqualifying status (here, whether a prior out-of-state conviction made the defendant a “felon” for § 12021) may be treated as a factual mistake for mens rea purposes.
- A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a defense theory supported by substantial evidence; refusal to instruct is reversible error when it removes a viable defense from the jury’s consideration.

## Conclusion

The court reversed because the jury was not instructed that a genuine and reasonable mistake about the defendant’s felony status could negate the mental element for felon-in-possession liability under Penal Code § 12021, and the evidence permitted the jury to find such a mistake.


People v. Bray, 52 Cal. App. 3d 494, 124 Cal. Rptr. 913 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975)