## Facts

- Marlene Ayers was at a Rio Linda apartment with three cousins when Anthony Williams, Kendall Williams (Ayers’s ex-boyfriend), and Kivon Holmes arrived around 10:00 p.m.
- Ayers opened the door after hearing “Anthony”; she tried to close it, but Anthony pushed it open and entered with Kendall while Holmes stayed in the doorway.
- Witnesses testified Kendall directed Anthony to pull out a gun; Anthony displayed a handgun and made hostile statements accusing Ayers of stealing Kendall’s car.
- Kendall demanded “where’s my shit,” seeking car keys and a laptop; Ayers indicated where the keys were and said the laptop was in the car.
- The men took the keys and left; one of them drove away in Ayers’s Oldsmobile, which contained the laptop and other property.
- At trial, Ayers claimed she owned the car and laptop; Anthony testified he believed the car belonged to Kendall based on the purchase circumstances and denied using a gun.
- The prosecution charged burglary and robbery, with a personal firearm use enhancement; the jury convicted Anthony of burglary (aiding and abetting), found the firearm enhancement true, and acquitted him of robbery.
- Anthony requested a claim-of-right instruction to negate intent to steal; the trial court refused.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant charged with aiding-and-abetting burglary predicated on larceny is entitled to a claim-of-right instruction when there is substantial evidence he honestly believed the property belonged to a coprincipal.
2. If the instruction was wrongly refused, whether the error was prejudicial.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held the trial court erred by refusing to instruct on claim of right because substantial evidence supported a good-faith belief the property belonged to Kendall.
- The court held the instructional error was harmless under the reasonable-probability standard.
- The judgment, including the burglary conviction and the personal firearm use enhancement, was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- A claim-of-right defense negates larceny if the defendant takes property under a subjective, good-faith belief of a lawful claim to specific property, even if the belief is unreasonable, so long as it is not a pretext to steal.
- For burglary predicated on larceny, the prosecution must prove entry with specific intent to steal; an aider and abettor must share that intent.
- A claim-of-right theory may apply where the defendant honestly believes the property belongs to a coprincipal, because that belief can negate the defendant’s intent to steal.
- A trial court must instruct on a requested defense supported by substantial evidence.
- Failure to instruct on a supported defense is reversible only if there is a reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome absent the error.

## Conclusion

The court recognized that substantial evidence supported a claim-of-right defense based on Anthony Williams’s asserted belief that the property belonged to his coprincipal brother, requiring a jury instruction in a larceny-based burglary case; however, given the forced entry, gun display, and accusatory threats, the omission was not reasonably likely to change the verdict, so the conviction and enhancement were affirmed.


People v. Williams, 176 Cal. App. 4th 1521, 98 Cal. Rptr. 3d 770 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)