Is there any case law where a defendant mistook a security guard for a police officer?

People v. Hendrix, cited by Babakitis, is distinguishable. There, the defendantcharged with resisting an executive officercontended he mistook the officer for a security guard, because he had fought with a security guard earlier that evening, his vision was blurred by pepper spray, the lighting was poor, and he was intoxicated. (People v. Hendrix, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 240.) The People introduced evidence of two prior incidents in which the defendant had unlawfully resisted officers as proof he knew the victim was an officer engaged in his duty. (Ibid.) A divided appellate panel held the evidence lacked probative value because the prior incidents did not involve security guards and did not prepare defendant to distinguish between security guards and police officers. (Id. at pp. 243-244.) It was also cumulative, because any "police-related knowledge defendant purportedly gained" from the prior incidents was "common knowledge," i.e., that in the course of duty, officers give verbal commands and use force to arrest noncompliant persons. (Id. at p. 244.) The evidence was prejudicial, because it included irrelevant information about the defendant's post-arrest threats to officers. (Id. at pp. 245-246.) Here, in contrast, the issue was not whether Babakitis knew the deputies were peace officers; the question was whether he resisted because he did not wish to be detained, or because the deputies engaged in an unlawful attack

Page 15