In People v. Tessman (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1293, the defendant stole jewelry from two victims and was charged with commercial burglary after selling some of the stolen jewelry to a pawn shop. (Tessman, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1296-1297.) Following a bench trial, the court found the defendant guilty, reasoning in part the defendant knew or reasonably should have known the pawned jewelry was stolen. (Id. at p. 1301.) On appeal, the Tessman court held, in the context of the trial court's "entire statement of decision," its erroneous reference to what the defendant should have known was merely a "slip of the tongue" or a secondary remark. (Id. at p. 1304.) The appellate court explained because the trial court had clearly determined elsewhere in its statement of decision the defendant had stolen the victims' jewelry, the misstatement did not reflect its "actual conclusions or reasoning." (Ibid.)