## Facts

- Isaiah Hendrix approached a single-family home in Oxnard early one October morning; surveillance showed him pacing, knocking, and pressing a video doorbell.
- After no response, Hendrix went to the backyard, opened a screen door, and attempted to open a locked glass door.
- Unable to enter, Hendrix sat on a backyard bench until police arrived.
- The resident, Artrose Tuano, was home, did not know Hendrix, saw Hendrix trying to “jimmy” the screen door, and called police.
- Hendrix told officers he was there to visit his cousin, but the cousin did not live at that address.
- At trial for first degree burglary of an inhabited dwelling, Hendrix’s primary defense was mistake of fact: he claimed he honestly believed the house belonged to his cousin.
- The prosecution argued the explanation was fabricated and introduced evidence Hendrix previously used a similar “looking for a relative” claim during a shoplifting incident.

## Issues

1. Whether instructing the jury that a mistake of fact must be “reasonable” misstated the law for a specific-intent crime such as burglary.
2. Whether the instructional error was prejudicial under California’s state-law harmless-error standard.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California held the trial court erred by instructing that Hendrix’s mistake of fact had to be reasonable to negate the intent required for burglary.
- The court held the error was prejudicial because it limited the jury’s ability to consider an evidence-supported defense central to whether Hendrix had the intent to commit theft or a felony at entry.
- The court reversed the Court of Appeal’s judgment affirming the conviction and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Burglary is a specific-intent offense requiring proof that the defendant entered with intent to commit theft or a felony.
- For specific-intent crimes, a mistake of fact need only be honestly (genuinely) held to negate the required intent; it need not be objectively reasonable.
- An instruction that imposes a reasonableness requirement for mistake of fact in a specific-intent case misstates the governing law.
- Under the state-law harmless-error test, the question is whether there is a reasonable probability of a more favorable result absent the error.
- Appellate courts may not treat instructional error as harmless by substituting their own credibility assessments for the jury’s evaluation where mental state is the main disputed issue.

## Conclusion

Because the jury was told it could accept Hendrix’s mistake-of-fact defense only if the mistake was reasonable, the instruction misstated the law governing burglary’s specific intent and, given substantial supporting evidence and the defense’s centrality to intent, the error was prejudicial, requiring reversal and remand.


People v. Hendrix, 13 Cal. 5th 933 (Cal. 2022)