California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Wayne Hansen Hsiung is that a criminal defendant charged with specific intent crimes may present a mistake of law defense based on good faith reliance on legal advice about the necessity defense, even when the necessity defense itself is legally unavailable, under circumstances where the defendant obtained legal opinions from qualified professionals regarding the lawfulness of his conduct and relied on those opinions in good faith.

Appeal from judgment after jury trial in Superior Court of the County of Sonoma.

Defendant Appellant was Wayne Hansen Hsiung — the animal rights activist who participated in "open rescues" at commercial poultry farms to document and address alleged animal suffering.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — the prosecuting authority seeking to hold defendant criminally liable for trespass and conspiracy charges.

The suit sounded in criminal law violations of trespass and conspiracy statutes. The charges arose from two open rescue incidents at Sonoma County poultry farms where defendant and other animal rights activists entered private property without permission to document conditions and rescue animals they believed were suffering.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were defendant's participation in organized "open rescue" incidents at Sunrise Farms (May 29, 2018) and Reichardt Duck Farm (June 3, 2019), where he and other animal rights activists entered private commercial poultry farms without permission, documented what they believed were suffering animals, removed some animals for veterinary care, and refused to leave when asked by property owners and law enforcement. Defendant had obtained legal opinions from Professor Hadar Aviram and former federal prosecutor Bonnie Klapper advising that his actions would be legally justified under the necessity defense.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court granted defendant's request for a mistake of law instruction based on Penal Code section 597e but denied his request for a mistake of law instruction based on the necessity defense, ruling that necessity "cannot be the basis for a mistake of law defense" and excluding evidence relating to the necessity opinions he had obtained. The jury convicted defendant on counts 1, 2, and 4.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether the trial court prejudicially erred by finding the necessity defense legally unavailable; 2. Whether the court deprived defendant of his constitutional right to present a complete defense by refusing to instruct the jury or permit evidence related to his good faith mistake of law that his actions were legally justified under the necessity defense; 3. Whether Penal Code section 31 violates the First Amendment by criminalizing "promotion" of illegal conduct; 4. Whether Penal Code section 602(o) violates the First Amendment as content-based speech restriction; 5. Whether the court erred in responding to jury questions about "promote"; 6. Whether the prosecutor impermissibly disparaged defendant's religious beliefs.

The Appellate Court held that while the necessity defense was properly excluded as legally unavailable due to lack of emergency circumstances requiring immediate action, the trial court erroneously limited defendant's ability to present a mistake of law defense based on his good faith reliance on legal advice regarding necessity for the specific intent crimes of trespass and conspiracy. The court reversed counts 1 and 4 but affirmed count 2.

The case is inapplicable when the charged offense is a general intent crime rather than specific intent, when the defendant did not obtain legal advice in good faith, when there is no evidence of reliance on professional legal opinions, or when the necessity defense might actually be legally available due to emergency circumstances requiring immediate action.

The case leaves open whether the necessity defense could ever apply to prevent harm to animals rather than humans, the standard for determining good faith reliance on legal advice in the mistake of law context, and whether defendant's specific reliance on the necessity opinions was actually held in good faith.