What is the test for determining whether a defendant's intent to injure was irrelevant?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Oskins, 69 Cal.App.4th 126, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 383 (Cal. App. 1999):
Here, the jury was told that appellant's intent was irrelevant. Appellant was precluded from presenting two witnesses who would have corroborated his testimony that the instrument at issue was a tool he used in his work as a mechanic. The jury was instructed, in effect, that appellant's intended or actual use of the instrument was irrelevant. Instructions on every material element of an offense are required. (People v. Flood, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 480-481, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180, 957 P.2d 869.) The defendant has a constitutional right to have the jury determine every material issue presented by the evidence. (Id. at p. 481, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180, 957 P.2d 869.) The court's failure to have the jury determine appellant's mens rea was a violation of his right to due process under the California and federal constitutions. (Id. at p. 482, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180, 957 P.2d 869.) Under the circumstances of this case, we cannot say the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, or that it is improbable that appellant would not have suffered the same result if the error had not been made.
The conviction must be reversed.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
