California v. Hussain
Annotate this CaseIn 2013, a jury found defendant guilty of grand theft of an automobile arising from an improper lien sale. The jury acquitted defendant of other charges arising from that sale, as well as the charge of operating a "chop shop." The trial court placed defendant on five years of formal probation, including 120 days in the county jail as a condition thereof. On appeal, defendant argued the trial court erred in failing to instruct sua sponte on claim of right as a defense, and that counsel was ineffective in failing to request the instruction. Defendant also argued there was insufficient evidence of his criminal intent. The State conceded the evidence supported a claim of right instruction. The People also conceded error by the trial court in failing to sua sponte instruct the jury on claim of right. The Court of Appeal agreed with the claim of right instruction, but rejected the State's concession that the trial court erred in failing on its own volition, to instruct the jury regarding that claim of right. The Court agreed that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to request that pattern instruction CALCRIM No. 1863 be given and that this failure resulted in prejudice to defendant. Accordingly, although the Court of Appeal found sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction, it reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.