Opinion ID: 1401242
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficient evidence supported the giving of a claim-of-right instruction

Text: At the threshold we must determine whether the evidence warranted the giving of a claim-of-right instruction in the first instance. The Court of Appeal found that it did. We agree. Defendant's account of the source of the $200 in the victim's residence during the criminal episode, and the manner in which he allegedly took it back upon fleeing from the residence, was sharply at odds with the victim's and victim's mother's testimony. Notably, however, it was defendant's testimony, not Shelly's or Josephine's, that most directly established a forcible taking of the $200 from the person of the victim: defendant claimed Shelly picked up the money and put it in her bra, and that he forcibly grabbed the money from her bra moments before he fled from the residence, whereas Josephine testified defendant took the money from the coffee table as he was fleeing. Generally, [a] party is not entitled to an instruction on a theory for which there is no supporting evidence. ( People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 868, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 219, 905 P.2d 1305.) [A] trial court is not required to instruct on a claim-of-right defense unless there is evidence to support an inference that [the defendant] acted with a subjective belief he or she had a lawful claim on the property. ( People v. Romo (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 514, 519, 269 Cal.Rptr. 440, italics omitted; Barnett, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 1145, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121, 954 P.2d 384.) Here, defendant's own testimony constituted such evidence. He claimed he brought the $200 into the residence to give to Shelly to pay bills and took it back upon concluding she was not going to use it for that purpose but would instead give it to her mother. He produced a witness (Hermasi Latu) who testified defendant had been paid $200 in cash on that same day. As explained, the prosecution did not attempt to argue that if defendant's testimony that he brought $200 into the residence was believed, there was further evidence that the $200 he took upon fleeing was different currency. `In evaluating the evidence to determine whether a requested instruction should be given, the trial court should not measure its substantiality by weighing the credibility [of the witnesses].... Doubts as to the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant instructions should be resolved in favor of the accused. [Citations.]' ( People v. Duckett (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 1115, 1125, 209 Cal.Rptr. 96.) ( People v. Romo, supra, 220 Cal.App.3d at p. 519, 269 Cal. Rptr. 440.) In Barnett, we evaluated the necessity of giving a claim-of-right instruction under the defendant's account of events. ( Barnett, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 1145, fn. 69, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121, 954 P.2d 384.) In Butler we observed that a forcible taking of property from another ordinarily allows an inference of an intent to steal, as opposed to a claim of right. ( Butler, supra, 65 Cal.2d at p. 573, 55 Cal.Rptr. 511, 421 P.2d 703.) Here, however, if defendant's version of the events was believed, even his self-admitted use of force did not preclude his raising a claim-of-right defense to the robbery charge, given his further testimony that he brought $200 into the victim's home and took back the same currency upon fleeing. Although defendant's and the victim's respective versions of the events differed considerably, defendant's testimony, together with that of the other defense witnesses, constituted sufficient evidence to warrant the giving of a claim-of-right instruction. [2]