People v. Hsiung

Summary

The California Court of Appeal considered challenges arising from Wayne Hansen Hsiung’s convictions for trespass and conspiracy to commit trespass based on animal-rights protests at Sonoma County poultry farms. The court rejected his necessity-defense, First Amendment, jury-instruction, and prosecutorial-misconduct claims, but held that the trial court improperly limited evidence and argument concerning his mistake-of-law defense. The court reversed the convictions on conspiracy to commit trespass and trespass with intent to interfere with a lawful business, remanded those counts for further proceedings, and affirmed the remaining trespass conviction.

Holdings

1. The trial court properly refused to instruct on necessity because defendant's evidence did not permit a reasonable jury to find that he acted in an emergency to prevent imminent significant harm while lacking a legal alternative. The court did not need to resolve categorically whether California's necessity defense may apply to harm threatened against animals.
2. A defendant charged with specific-intent trespass or conspiracy may present a good-faith mistake-of-law defense based on the belief that the necessity defense legally justified the conduct, even if the defendant knew the conduct technically constituted trespass.
3. The trial court violated defendant's constitutional right to present a complete defense by excluding evidence and argument concerning his good-faith belief that necessity justified the trespasses and by limiting the mistake-of-law instruction to Penal Code section 597e.
4. Penal Code section 31 is not facially or as applied unconstitutional under the First Amendment merely because aiding-and-abetting instructions describe conduct as promoting, encouraging, or facilitating a crime.
5. Penal Code section 602, subdivision (o), is not unconstitutional as a content-based restriction on speech because it expressly excludes persons engaging in activities protected by the California or United States Constitution.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court properly refused to instruct the jury on the necessity defense.
2. Whether the trial court violated defendant's right to present a complete defense by excluding evidence and argument concerning his good-faith mistake of law based on the necessity defense.
3. Whether Penal Code section 31 is facially or as-applied unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the extent aiding-and-abetting instructions use the terms promote or promoting.
4. Whether Penal Code section 602, subdivision (o), is an unconstitutional content-based restriction on speech.
5. Whether the trial court prejudicially erred in responding to the jury's questions concerning the meaning of promote.
6. Whether the prosecutor improperly disparaged defendant's ethical-vegan and animal-rights beliefs.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded