People v. Bray

{{Infobox court case

|name = People v. Bray

|image = Great Seal of California.svg

|imagesize =

|imagelink =

|imagealt =

|caption =

|full name = The People of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James Eugene Bray, Defendant and Appellant.

|date decided = {{start date|1975|10|27}}

|citations = 52 Cal. App. 3d 494; 124 Cal. Rptr. 913

|ECLI =

|transcripts =

|judges = Gerald Brown, Richard D. Ault, Martin J. Coughlin{{efn|Retired; sitting under appointment}}

|number of judges = 3

|Majority = Brown

|JoinMajority = Ault, Coughlin

|concurring =

|dissenting =

|concur/dissent =

|prior actions =

|appealed from =

|appealed to =

|subsequent actions =

|related actions =

|opinions =

|keywords =

|italic title =

}}

People v. Bray, {{law report|52|Cal. App. 3d|494}} (1975), was a case decided by the California Court of Appeal that allowed ignorance of a grading element to be a defense to criminal prosecution.Bonnie, R.J. et al. Criminal Law, Second Edition. Foundation Press, New York, NY: 2004, p. 225

Factual background

Defendant Bray was convicted of being a felon in possession of firearms. Bray did possess two concealable firearms, but his status as a felon was unclear. Bray had been convicted in Kansas years earlier of being an accessory after the fact, but even at trial it was unclear if this offense was a felony under Kansas law. Subsequently, when Bray was required to disclose felon status on forms for things like voting, he explained the situation and was allowed to vote in California.Bonnie, p. 225

Decision

The Court of Appeal reversed Bray's conviction, allowing his mistake about his felony status to act as a defense to criminal liability. Under the Model Penal Code, a mistake of criminal law, like one's felony status, is not normally allowed as a defense.Dressler, J. Understanding Criminal Law, Fifth Edition. Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. New York, NY: 2009, p. 178 Instead the court treated Bray's mistake about his felony status, a grading element in the statute under which he was charged, as a mistake of fact that was an appropriate defense.Bonnie, p. 226