## Facts

- Brent Kerrigan Lawson entered a Walmart in Rancho Cucamonga and first returned items, receiving over $228 in gift cards.
- He selected a $20 hoodie, removed it from a hanger, tucked the sales tag inside the hoodie, and draped it over his shoulder while walking in the store.
- About six minutes later, Lawson went through checkout and paid for other items, but not the hoodie.
- Lawson exited the store with the hoodie still on his shoulder and was stopped shortly outside by a loss-prevention agent who had observed him on video; Lawson complied.
- Lawson did not testify at trial.
- The defense argued Lawson forgot the hoodie was on his shoulder and therefore lacked intent to steal.
- A jury convicted Lawson of petty theft, and the court found prior theft/burglary convictions qualifying the offense as petty theft with priors, plus three prior prison terms; Lawson received a five-year prison sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by failing, sua sponte, to instruct the jury on mistake of fact based on the theory that Lawson forgot the hoodie was on his shoulder and thus did not intend to steal.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
- The court held the evidence did not support a mistake-of-fact instruction because “forgetting” is not a mistaken belief in facts that would make the conduct lawful.
- The court held there was no sua sponte duty to instruct on mistake of fact where the theory merely negated intent and the jury was otherwise correctly instructed on the intent element of theft.

## Legal Principles

- Mistake of fact applies only where the defendant holds a mistaken belief about facts or circumstances which, if true, would render otherwise criminal conduct lawful.
- Forgetfulness about one’s own conduct (e.g., walking out with unpaid merchandise) is not a qualifying mistake of fact; it is an argument that the defendant did not form the required intent.
- A trial court must instruct sua sponte on a defense only when supported by substantial evidence and closely connected to the case; no sua sponte instruction is required for a theory that merely disputes an element already covered by correct instructions.
- When the jury is properly instructed that theft requires intent to permanently deprive, a separate mistake-of-fact instruction is unnecessary if it would only restate the intent dispute.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Lawson’s petty theft with priors conviction and sentence, ruling that alleged forgetfulness did not warrant a mistake-of-fact instruction and that no sua sponte instruction was required because the jury was correctly instructed on the mens rea for theft.


People v. Lawson, 215 Cal. App. 4th 108, 155 Cal. Rptr. 3d 236 (Ct. App. 2013)