Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Brief

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

  • Law School Case Brief

Hopson v. State - No. 14-08-00735-CR, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 2903 (Tex. App. Apr. 28, 2009)

Rule:

A trial court is not always required to submit an unnecessary mistake-of-fact instruction if the defense is adequately covered by the charge as given.

Facts:

Defendant Karissa Lou Hopson, was arrested at a house in Lufkin on July 7, 2007 and was charged with two offenses: (1) burglary, by entering a habitation without the owners' consent and with the intent to commit theft; and (2) criminal mischief, by intentionally or knowingly damaging or destroying tangible property without the owners' consent. A jury convicted defendant of both offenses. On appeal of her burglary conviction, defendant insisted that the evidence raised a fact issue as to whether she mistakenly believed she was preventing, not committing, a theft. She contended that the evidence required the trial court to submit a mistake-of-fact instruction to the jury, and that she was harmed by the trial court's refusal to do so.

Issue:

Did the evidence require the trial court to submit a mistake-of-fact instruction to the jury? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that the requested instruction was not necessary because the mistake-of-fact defense was adequately covered by the charge submitted to the jury. The effect of defendant’s testimony, and the thrust of her requested instruction, amounted to an attempt to convince the jury that her intent was something other than the intent to commit theft. However, to convict her of that offense, the State was already required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she entered the house, without the effective consent of the owners, with the intent to commit theft. To that end, the jury was instructed that intent was an element of the crime and that it had to acquit defendant if the State failed to prove every element. The trial court was not required to submit a defensive issue that did no more than recast the required element of criminal intent as a defensive issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. 

Access the full text case

Essential Class Preparation Skills

  • How to Answer Your Professor's Questions
  • How to Brief a Case
  • Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required)

Essential Class Resources

  • CivPro
  • Contracts
  • Constitutional Law
  • Corporations /Business Organizations
  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure/Investigation
  • Evidence
  • Legal Ethics/Professional Responsibility
  • Property
  • Secured Transactions
  • Torts
  • Trusts & Estates