California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Wayne Hansen Hsiung is that a defendant charged with specific intent crimes such as trespass with intent to interfere with business and conspiracy must be permitted to present evidence of his good faith mistake of law defense based on his belief that necessity doctrine justified his conduct, even when the necessity defense itself is legally unavailable, under circumstances where legal experts advised the defendant that his trespass was lawful under necessity principles.

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

Defendant Appellant was Wayne Hansen Hsiung — the animal rights activist who cofounded Direct Action Everywhere and organized "open rescues" at commercial poultry farms.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — the prosecution in this criminal trespass case.

The suit sounded in criminal trespass and conspiracy. The case involved charges for trespass by refusing to leave property, trespass with intent to interfere with business, and conspiracy to commit trespass.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were defendant's participation in animal rights protests at two Sonoma County poultry farms (Sunrise Farms in May 2018 and Reichardt Duck Farm in June 2019), where he and other activists entered private property without permission to document animal conditions and rescue animals they believed were suffering, based on legal opinions from a criminal law professor and former federal prosecutor that necessity doctrine justified their actions.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court refused to instruct the jury on defendant's necessity defense, finding it legally unavailable, and limited his mistake of law defense to only section 597e (providing food/water to impounded animals), excluding evidence that he relied on legal advice regarding necessity doctrine, ruling that necessity cannot be the basis for a mistake of law defense because it does not negate specific intent.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether the trial court properly excluded the necessity defense as legally unavailable 2. Whether the court violated defendant's constitutional rights by refusing to permit evidence of his mistake of law defense based on necessity doctrine for the specific intent crimes 3. Various constitutional challenges to the criminal statutes

The Appellate Court held that while necessity defense was properly excluded due to lack of emergency circumstances and planned nature of the conduct, defendant's constitutional right to present a complete defense was violated by excluding his mistake of law defense based on good faith reliance on legal advice regarding necessity doctrine, as such evidence was relevant to whether he formed the specific intent required for trespass and conspiracy charges.

The case is inapplicable when the charged crimes are general intent offenses rather than specific intent crimes, when there is no evidence of good faith reliance on legal advice, or when the defendant's actions truly constitute an emergency response to imminent harm rather than planned conduct.

The case leaves open whether the necessity defense could ever apply to prevent harm to animals rather than humans, what constitutes sufficient "emergency" circumstances for necessity defense, and how other constitutional challenges to the statutes might be resolved in different factual contexts.