Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D walked up to a house in Oxnard, knocked on the door, and rang the doorbell. Hearing no response, D walked around the house to the backyard, opened a screen door, and attempted to open the locked glass door behind it. Then, failing that, D sat down on a bench and stayed there. D was sitting on the bench when the police arrived. D told police he was there to visit his cousin, but D's cousin did not, in fact, live in the house. A search of d revealed no burglary tools; D was carrying only a water bottle. Artrose Tuano, who lived in the house, was home at the time. Tuano had never seen Hendrix before; that the screen door into the house was locked; and that he called the police when D tried to “jimmy” it open. The cousin actually lived several blocks away. D was charged with burglary. The jury instruction given informed jurors that they should not convict D if they determined he lacked criminal intent because he mistakenly believed a relevant fact-namely, that the house belonged to his cousin and not to a stranger. The instruction specified that the mistake in question had to be a reasonable one. D was convicted. The court of appeals affirmed. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.