California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Wayne Hansen Hsiung is that a criminal defendant charged with specific intent crimes such as conspiracy and trespass with intent to interfere has a constitutional right to present evidence of his good faith but mistaken belief that his conduct was legally justified under the necessity defense, even though the necessity defense itself is legally unavailable, under circumstances where the defendant relied on legal opinions advising that his actions were lawful.

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

Defendant Appellant was Wayne Hansen Hsiung — the animal rights activist and co-founder of Direct Action Everywhere who participated in "open rescues" at commercial poultry farms based on his belief that such actions were legally justified to prevent animal suffering.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — the prosecution in this criminal case charging trespass and conspiracy related to animal rights protests.

The suit sounded in criminal law involving trespass and conspiracy charges.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that defendant and Direct Action Everywhere activists engaged in "open rescues" at Sunrise Farms on May 29, 2018 and Reichardt Duck Farm on June 3, 2019, entering private commercial poultry properties without permission to document animal conditions and rescue animals they believed were suffering, based on legal opinions from Professor Hadar Aviram and former federal prosecutor Bonnie Klapper advising that the necessity defense would justify their actions.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied defendant's necessity defense as legally unavailable, limited his mistake of law defense to only Section 597e (providing food/water to impounded animals), and excluded evidence of the legal opinions regarding necessity, ruling that necessity could not be the basis for a mistake of law defense because it does not negate specific intent.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Did the trial court err by excluding defendant's necessity defense as a matter of law? 2. Did the court violate defendant's constitutional right to present a complete defense by refusing to instruct on mistake of law predicated on necessity and excluding related evidence? 3. Do Penal Code sections 31 and 602(o) violate the First Amendment? 4. Did the court err in responding to jury questions? 5. Did the prosecutor improperly disparage defendant's religious beliefs?

The Appellate Court held that while the necessity defense was properly excluded due to lack of emergency circumstances and imminence of harm, the trial court erroneously denied defendant's right to present evidence of his good faith but mistaken belief that necessity justified his actions for purposes of negating the specific intent required for conspiracy and trespass charges, requiring reversal of counts 1 and 4.

The case is inapplicable when the charged crimes are general intent rather than specific intent crimes, when the defendant lacked good faith reliance on legal advice, or when there are actual emergency circumstances with imminent harm that might support a necessity defense.

The case leaves open whether the necessity defense can ever apply to prevent harm to animals rather than humans, the scope of what constitutes "emergency" circumstances for necessity, and whether different factual circumstances regarding imminence might support a necessity instruction in future animal rights cases.