Return to Return to Non-CALJIC Defenses – Contents
F 4.001 n1 Claim Of Right: Inapplicable To Ransom Demand.
(See In re Albert A. (96) 47 CA4th 1004 [55 CR2d 217]. See also FORECITE F 9.40 n9.)
F 4.001 n2 Claim Of Right: Improper To Define As A Defense.
[See Brief Bank # B-862 for briefing on this issue.]
F 4.001a
Claim Of Right
The defendant’s honest belief, even if mistakenly held, that [he] [she] had a right or claim to the property taken negates the felonious intent necessary to convict [him] [her] of robbery [or] theft.
The defendant need not show the claim of right was reasonable. An unreasonable belief that [he] [she] had a legal right to take the property will suffice so long as the claim was made in good faith.
If the evidence raises a reasonable doubt as to whether defendant acted under a bona fide belief in a right or claim to the property you must find that defendant did not form the necessary felonious intent.
Points and Authorities
[See FORECITE F 9.40a and FORECITE F 9.40 n9.]
NOTES
The defense is not available if the claim is based on illegal activities or is founded on revenge. (See FORECITE F 9.40a.)
It is still unresolved whether the defense applies to self help; i.e., when property is taken to recoup an unliquidated debt or as recompense for unlawful property damage. (See FORECITE F 9.40 n9.)
F 4.001b
Claim Of Right on Behalf of Another
The defendant’s honest belief, even if mistakenly held, that [he] [she] had a right or claim to the possession of the property on behalf of another negates the felonious intent necessary to convict [him] [her] of [robbery] [burglary] or [theft].
The defendant need not show the claim of right was reasonable. An unreasonable belief that [he] [she] had a legal right to take the property on behalf of another will suffice so long as the claim was made in good faith.
If the evidence raises a reasonable doubt as to whether defendant acted under a bona fide belief in a right or claim to the property on behalf of another, you must find that defendant did not form the necessary felonious intent.
Points and Authorities
The claim of right defense is applicable when the defendant has “a subjective belief, he or she has a lawful claim on the property.” (People v. Romo (90) 220 CA3d 514, 519 [269 CR 440].) Logically the defense also applies when the defendant is acting as an agent for another party who the defendant believes has a valid claim to the property. (But see People v. Hargrove DEPUBLISHED (2002) 96 CA4th 279 [116 CR2d 813, 819] [aider and abettor not entitled to raise claim of right if perpetrator did not have valid claim of right].)
Moreover, this logic is reflected in case law analysis. “The principle that larceny is not predicable on a good-faith taking under claim of right also applies in the case of one acting under the belief … that one whom he assists in the taking has a right thereto ….” (50 Am.Jur.2d “Larceny” Section 41); see also Dean v. State (1899) 41 Fla. 291 [26 SO 638] [“[The intent to steal] cannot be where the taker honestly believes the property is … that of another, and that he has a right to take possession of it … for another, for the protection of [the other]”] and Ambrose v. Commonwealth (21) 129 Va. 763 [106 S.E. 348, 349] [“(A)lthough Mrs. Schnoele was not the owner, yet if the defendant honestly thought she was, and acted on that belief [when he acquired her estranged husband’s car], they should acquit him”].)
Failure to adequately instruct upon a defense or defense theory implicates the defendant’s state (Art. I, § 15 and § 16) and federal (6th and 14th Amendments) constitutional rights to trial by jury, compulsory process and due process. [See FORECITE PG VII(C).]
(See FORECITE F 9.40 n9.)
NOTES
[See also FORECITE F 9.40a–c.]
