Hopson v. Texas

2009 WL 1124389 (2009)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Officers saw D standing on the front porch of the house, holding a large television. D set the television on the porch and approached the officers, claiming that she knew the house owners and that she had their permission to be on the property. The officers noticed that several of the house windows had been broken and that D had blood on her shirt and hand. The officers also saw that portions of the interior of the house, including furniture, had been damaged. D was arrested. The owners of the house arrived at the scene and indicated that they did not know D, and they denied giving her permission to enter the premises or to remove their television from the house. D was charged with burglary and criminal mischief. D pleaded 'not guilty.' D testified and acknowledged that she had entered the residence and that she was carrying the television when the police arrived. D claims that she believed that, through her actions, she was actually thwarting a burglary that was being committed by another man, Cayetano Padierna. D claims that she had stopped at the house to visit the owners, who were her friends. Both owners were gone but Padierna, whom she did not know, was removing items from the house. Thinking that Padierna was stealing from the owners, D confronted him, and he left. D then picked the television up, claiming that she meant to return it to the house when the police--who had been summoned by Padierna--arrived and arrested her. D claimed that she reasonably, but mistakenly, believed Padierna was stealing from the owners and that, by picking up the television, she was acting with the intent to prevent, not commit, a theft. D asked for a mistake-of-fact instruction to the jury: A defendant who thought she was performing an activity may lack the necessary criminal intent where she reasonably believes she acted to prevent a crime. If you believe that at the time of the offense charged, D reasonably believed that she acted to prevent a theft, then you must find her not guilty. The judge refused, and D was found guilty and appealed.