## Facts

- Halaliku Kaloni Tufunga was prosecuted for offenses arising from an incident at his ex-wife Shelly’s home, including robbery and related charges.
- The alleged robbery involved Tufunga forcibly taking back $200 during a domestic dispute.
- Tufunga presented evidence that he honestly believed the $200 was his own money and that he was reclaiming it rather than stealing.
- The defense requested a jury instruction on the claim-of-right doctrine as a defense to robbery.
- The trial court refused to give the requested instruction, and the jury convicted Tufunga of robbery (and other offenses, including a lesser offense on an assault-related count).
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, reasoning on public policy grounds that the claim-of-right defense should not be available in robbery cases, despite evidence supporting the instruction under existing precedent.

## Issues

1. Whether California law recognizes a claim-of-right defense to robbery when the defendant, in good faith, believes he is taking property that belongs to him, thereby negating the felonious intent required for robbery.
2. Whether an appellate court may eliminate the claim-of-right defense for robbery on public policy grounds despite controlling precedent and the statutory definition of robbery.
3. Whether the trial court must instruct on claim of right when substantial evidence supports the defense theory.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held that a bona fide claim of right remains a defense to robbery when the defendant seeks to retake specific property he in good faith believes is his own.
- The court limited prior authority to the extent it suggested the defense extends to forcible takings to satisfy a general debt.
- The court held the trial court erred by refusing a claim-of-right instruction because substantial evidence supported the defense.
- The court held the Court of Appeal lacked authority to abolish the defense on public policy grounds because doing so would alter the statutorily defined mens rea of robbery.
- The court reversed the judgment insofar as it upheld the robbery conviction and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Robbery requires a “felonious taking,” meaning an intent to steal; an honest, good-faith belief of ownership of specific property is inconsistent with intent to steal and defeats the mens rea for robbery.
- Claim of right applies to retaking specific, identified property the defendant in good faith believes belongs to him; it does not apply to violent self-help to collect an asserted general indebtedness.
- Courts may not redefine the mental element of a statutorily defined offense on policy grounds; changes to robbery’s mens rea must come from the Legislature.
- A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a defense theory when substantial evidence supports it; failure to instruct is reversible error when it is prejudicial to the verdict.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated claim of right as a robbery defense for good-faith retaking of specific property, rejected judicial abolition of the defense on policy grounds, narrowed its application in debt-collection settings, and required that juries be instructed on the defense when supported by substantial evidence.


People v. Tufunga, 21 Cal. 4th 935 (Cal. 1999)