## Facts

- The State charged Sally Mistook, a first-year law student, with burglary, trespass, and leaving an abandoned refrigerator accessible to children.
- Mistook was found at 6:45 p.m. on a Monday in a law-school stairwell holding a folder containing a draft of the Criminal Law final examination.
- The folder had been taken from Professor Earnest’s office, where Earnest had left two folders on a table just inside the door: one containing a class roster and lecture notes, and one containing the draft final exam.
- Mistook testified she intended to take the roster/notes folder because she dreaded being called on in the next class.
- Mistook testified that Earnest had told students her regular office hours were Mondays from 4:00 p.m. to 6:40 p.m. and that students could enter the office and wait during those hours if Earnest was not present.
- Earnest had cancelled office hours that day and notified students via an in-class handout.
- Police went to Mistook’s home and observed two children playing with a full-size, empty refrigerator on the street outside; the refrigerator bore Mistook’s name.
- Mistook testified she removed one set of hinges from the refrigerator door, but the prosecution demonstrated that the refrigerator still latched.
- Mistook requested jury instructions on mistake of fact. The trial court refused to give the requested instructions.
- The jury convicted Mistook on all counts, and she appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Imagination.

## Issues

1. Whether Mistook was entitled to a mistake-of-fact jury instruction as to burglary and trespass based on her claimed belief about permission to be in Earnest’s office and/or her claimed intent to take the roster/notes folder rather than the exam folder.
2. Whether Mistook was entitled to a mistake-of-fact instruction as to the offense of leaving an abandoned refrigerator accessible to children based on her claim that she made the refrigerator safe by removing hinges.
3. Whether the trial court commits reversible error by refusing a requested defense instruction when the evidence would not allow a reasonable jury to find the defense applies.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of the State of Imagination affirmed Mistook’s convictions.
- The court held the trial judge properly refused the requested mistake-of-fact instructions because the evidence did not support a reasonable mistake-of-fact defense to the charged offenses.
- As to burglary and trespass, Mistook’s knowledge that office hours were cancelled and her conduct in entering (or reaching into) the office to take a folder defeated a claim of reasonable belief in authorization.
- As to the refrigerator charge, removing only one set of hinges while leaving the door able to latch did not eliminate the hazard the statute targeted, making any belief that the refrigerator was safe unreasonable as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- A mistake of fact is a defense only when the defendant’s belief, if true, would negate the mental-state element required for the offense.
- A defendant is entitled to a requested defense instruction only if there is evidence from which a reasonable jury could find the facts necessary for the defense; a court may refuse an instruction unsupported by the record.
- For entry-and-taking crimes such as burglary and trespass, a belief in permission or authorization must be reasonable to support a mistake-of-fact instruction when the charged offense requires knowing unlawful entry or intent to commit a crime inside.
- For public-safety offenses aimed at preventing a specific hazard, a claimed belief that the condition is safe will not justify a mistake-of-fact instruction where the undisputed condition still presents the prohibited danger.

## Conclusion

People v. Sally Mistook, 2 Imagination Cases 5 (2004), affirmed convictions for burglary, trespass, and leaving an abandoned refrigerator accessible to children, holding that the trial court correctly refused Mistook’s requested mistake-of-fact jury instructions because the evidence would not allow a reasonable jury to find she reasonably believed she had permission to take the folder or that the refrigerator had been rendered nonhazardous.
