People v. Bradt CA1/5

Filed 10/22/21 P. v. Bradt CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, A158999 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR6970881) ARENT BRADT, Defendant and Appellant.

Arent Bradt (appellant) appeals his conviction of second degree murder, arguing instructional error. We find any error harmless, and affirm. BACKGROUND We recite only those background facts necessary to our resolution of this appeal. At trial, it was undisputed that appellant killed the victim by stabbing him multiple times. The People presented evidence indicating the victim was not threatening appellant before the stabbing. Appellant testified the victim screamed at him and charged him, appellant thought the victim wanted to kill him, and he was terrified. Appellant also presented expert testimony indicating that, due to childhood lead exposure, trauma, and/or head injuries, he had difficulty distinguishing between neutral and

1

threatening behavior; and that he had schizophrenic spectrum disorder and was having a psychotic episode on the day of the killing. The jury acquitted defendant of first degree murder and convicted him of second degree murder. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION Appellant argues the trial court erred in its instruction on mistake of fact. As relevant here, the jury was instructed: “If you find that the defendant believed that he was threatened and if you find that belief was reasonable, he did not have the specific intent or mental state required for Murder.”1 (Italics added.) Appellant argues on appeal this instruction was error because an unreasonable belief could also have negated the mental state required for murder. We need not decide whether the trial court erred because any error was harmless. “ ‘Error in failing to instruct on the mistake-of-fact defense is subject to the harmless error test set forth in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836, 299 [P.2d 243].’ ” (People v. Molano (2019) 7 Cal.5th 620, 670.)2 “ ‘In determining whether instructional error was harmless, relevant