In People v. Laiwala (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1065, the defendant was convicted of grand theft of a trade secret. (Id. at p. 1067.) The appellate court reversed the conviction finding that there was "'insufficient evidence that information taken by the defendant qualified as a trade secret ... .'" (Ibid.) The defendant filed a petition seeking a finding of factual innocence. (Ibid.) The superior court denied the petition. (Ibid.) The appellate court ruled that a defendant can establish "factual innocence by demonstrating the absence of reasonable cause to support a single element of the crime." (Id. at p. 1070.) Thus, since there was no evidence to support the contention that what the defendant had taken was a trade secret, the defendant was factually innocent of the crime with which he was charged. (Id. at p. 1072.) Quoting People v. Matthews (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1052, 1056-1057 9 Cal. Rptr. 2d 348, the court noted that "'Some legal defenses may be so related to the defendant's own conduct that the existence of the defense negates a requisite element of the offense or otherwise eliminates culpability, thereby revealing no reasonable cause to believe the arrestee committed an offense and establishing factual innocence, within the meaning of Penal Code section 851.8.'" (Laiwala, at p. 1072.)