## Facts

- Waldo Navarro was charged with grand theft for taking four wooden beams from a construction site.
- The evidence permitted a finding either that Navarro believed the beams were abandoned or he had permission to take them, or that they were valuable, not abandoned, and he lacked any right to take them.
- Navarro requested jury instructions stating that a good-faith belief in abandonment or permission negates theft liability even if the belief is unreasonable.
- The trial court refused the requested instructions and instead instructed that the belief had to be both reasonable and in good faith.
- The jury convicted Navarro of petty theft as a lesser included offense, and he appealed based on instructional error.

## Issues

1. In a theft prosecution requiring specific intent, does an honest good-faith belief that property was abandoned or that the defendant had permission to take it negate the required intent even if the belief was unreasonable?
2. Did the trial court err by instructing the jury that the mistake-of-fact/claim-of-right defense applies only if the defendant’s belief was reasonable?

## Decision

- The appellate department reversed the petty-theft conviction and remanded.
- The court held that theft requires a specific intent to steal, and an honest good-faith belief in a right to the property negates that intent.
- The court ruled it was error to condition the defense on objective reasonableness and to refuse instructions allowing acquittal based on an unreasonable but honest belief.
- The instructional error was prejudicial because the jury could have found Navarro honestly mistaken yet convicted under the “reasonable and good faith” standard.

## Legal Principles

- Theft (larceny) is a specific-intent offense requiring a felonious intent to steal (commonly, intent to permanently deprive).
- A defendant who honestly believes property is abandoned, is his, or is taken with the owner’s permission lacks the specific intent to steal.
- For theft, an honest good-faith mistake of fact or claim of right is a defense even if the belief is objectively unreasonable.
- The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the presence of specific intent; once a good-faith belief is in issue, the state must disprove it as part of proving intent.
- Jury instructions that add a reasonableness requirement to a good-faith-belief defense improperly narrow the defense and misstate the mens rea element for theft.

## Conclusion

The court reversed Navarro’s theft conviction because the jury was incorrectly instructed that Navarro’s asserted belief in abandonment or permission had to be reasonable; an honest good-faith belief, even if unreasonable, negates the specific intent required for theft and must be fully presented to the jury.


People v. Navarro, 99 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 1, 160 Cal. Rptr. 692 (App. Dep’t Super. Ct. L.A. Cnty. 1979)