## Facts

- A public road ran across land owned by the defendant’s son.
- A new public road was later constructed to replace the old road.
- Believing the old road had been abandoned as a public highway, the defendant dug up part of the old road where it crossed the land and fenced that portion into the parcel.
- The defendant was charged with and convicted of willfully and feloniously injuring a public highway.
- The defendant requested jury instructions that an honest, good-faith belief that he had the legal right to reclaim and fence the former roadway would negate criminal intent.
- The trial court instructed, in substance, that the defendant’s honest belief in his legal right was no defense, and the jury convicted.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant can be convicted of willfully and feloniously injuring a public highway when he acted under an honest, good-faith belief that the road was legally abandoned and he had the right to reclaim and fence it.
2. Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury that such a good-faith belief was not a defense, thereby removing the felonious-intent question from the jury.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- Felonious (criminal) intent is an essential element of the offense of willfully and feloniously injuring a public highway.
- An honest and reasonable good-faith belief in a legal right to act, even if mistaken, can negate the required felonious intent.
- The trial court’s instruction that the defendant’s belief was no defense was erroneous because it permitted conviction without a finding of the requisite criminal purpose.

## Legal Principles

- The difference between a criminal property interference and a civil trespass turns on whether a criminal mind and purpose accompanied the act.
- When a statute requires a “willful” and “felonious” injury, the prosecution must prove a criminal purpose, not merely a voluntary act causing damage.
- A bona fide claim of right, including a good-faith mistake about one’s legal entitlement, is relevant to mens rea and may defeat proof of felonious intent.
- A defendant is entitled to jury instructions allowing acquittal if the jury finds he honestly believed, on reasonable grounds, that he had the legal right to do the charged act.

## Conclusion

Because the offense required proof of felonious intent and the defendant’s good-faith claim of right could negate that intent, the trial court’s contrary instruction was error; the conviction was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial with proper instructions.


People v. Goodin, 136 Cal. 455, 69 P. 85 (Cal. 1902)