Caseflicks

Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California • 1979

People v. Navarro

99 Cal. App. Supp. 3d 1 | 160 Cal. Rptr. 692 | 1979 Cal. App. LEXIS 2376

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that theft requires actual felonious intent: an honest belief that one may take property defeats that intent, even when the belief is unreasonable.

Background

Navarro was charged with grand theft under Penal Code section 487 for taking four wooden beams from a construction site. The evidence permitted two competing views: Navarro may have honestly believed the beams were abandoned, worthless, and free for him to take, or he may have known they retained value, had not been abandoned, and belonged to someone else.

A jury convicted Navarro of petty theft, a necessarily included offense. He had requested instructions stating that an honest, good-faith belief that the beams were abandoned or that he had permission to take them negated theft, even if the belief was unreasonable. The trial court instead required that any such good-faith belief also be reasonable. Navarro appealed, challenging those instructions.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether a defendant charged with theft is entitled to acquittal when he honestly but unreasonably believes that property was abandoned or that he had the owner's permission to take it.

Holding

Yes. An honest, good-faith belief that the property was abandoned or that the defendant had a right or permission to take it negates the specific intent required for theft, even if that belief was objectively unreasonable.

Reasoning

Theft is a specific-intent crime: it requires an intent permanently to deprive the owner of property. A person who genuinely believes the property is abandoned or that he is authorized to take it does not possess that felonious intent. The relevant question is therefore what the defendant actually believed, not what a hypothetical reasonable person would have believed.

California decisions had long recognized that a good-faith claim of right defeats larceny because it defeats felonious intent. In People v. Devine, the Supreme Court explained that a person cannot intend to steal property he believes is his own, even if he was careless in reaching that belief. People v. Photo and In re Bayles likewise treated an honest belief in ownership or a legal right to possession as incompatible with theft.

The court drew support from cases involving knowledge-based crimes. Those decisions rejected instructions allowing conviction based merely on facts that would have caused a reasonable person to know property was stolen. An objective test risks punishing a defendant for being careless, imprudent, or insufficiently suspicious rather than for actually having the criminal knowledge or intent the statute requires.

An unreasonable belief may be powerful evidence from which jurors infer that the defendant did not honestly hold the belief. But reasonableness is evidentiary, not an independent legal requirement. If the jury finds that Navarro genuinely believed he could take the beams, the prosecution has failed to prove the required specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issue #2

Whether the trial court's reasonable-good-faith-belief instructions were proper in this theft prosecution.

Holding

No. The instructions were erroneous because they made acquittal depend on the reasonableness as well as the honesty of Navarro's belief, and the error required reversal.

Reasoning

By instructing that a belief in abandonment, consent, or permission had to be both reasonable and in good faith, the trial court effectively permitted conviction even if Navarro honestly believed he had a right to take the beams. That instruction improperly added an objective reasonableness requirement to the specific-intent element of theft.

The portion of the instruction stating that Navarro was entitled to acquittal if the jury had a reasonable doubt about whether he possessed the required criminal intent was correct. The defect was the preceding language defining the asserted good-faith beliefs as a defense only when they were reasonable.

People v. Mayberry did not support the instruction. Mayberry concerned mistake-of-fact instructions for rape and kidnapping, which the court characterized as general-intent crimes. Its discussion did not displace the rule that an honest mistake negating the specific intent to steal is a defense to theft.

The court also cautioned that the standard California instruction on ignorance or mistake of fact, which speaks of an honest and reasonable belief, should be avoided or modified when a mistake may negate a specific intent or other mental state required by the charged offense.