claim-of-right defense in Missouri

2005In support of its contention that the appellant did not inject the issue of a *196 claim-of-right defense, the State cites three cases, Quisenberry, 639 S.W.2d at 582-83 ; State v. Hontz, 655 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Mo.App.1983); State v. Kramer, 809 S.W.2d 50, 52 (Mo.App.1991), for the proposition that where a defendant asserts he or she had an honest belief, and that assertion flies in the face of the surrounding facts of the taking, the trial court does not err in failing to instruct on a claim-of-right defense.

2005In Quisenberry , the Court explained that the claim-of-right instruction had to be instructed upon if supported by evidence and held that the trial court was correct in omitting the claim-of-right instruction because neither the defendant nor the State presented any evidence to support it. 639 S.W.2d at 583 .

2024See Robinson, 484 S.W.3d at 874-75 (holding a trial court’s failure to give three mandatory instructions resulted in manifest injustice because the jury lacked “sufficient guidance”); see also State v. January, 176 S.W.3d 187, 199 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (holding the failure to instruct on a claim-of-right defense “alone is sufficient for us to find manifest injustice and a miscarriage of justice”); Smith, 154 S.W.3d at 470 (“[W]e find that the omissions by the trial court in instructing the jury on note-taking, as mandated by Note on Use 4 for MAI– CR 3d 302.01, were significant . . . such that

2017State v. January, 176 S.W.3d 187, 195 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005), The applicable MAI-CR notes on use only requires that evidence supports a claim of right defense, and does not require anything more to justify this instruction.

2005In support of its contention that the appellant did not inject the issue of a *196 claim-of-right defense, the State cites three cases, Quisenberry, 639 S.W.2d at 582-83 ; State v. Hontz, 655 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Mo.App.1983); State v. Kramer, 809 S.W.2d 50, 52 (Mo.App.1991), for the proposition that where a defendant asserts he or she had an honest belief, and that assertion flies in the face of the surrounding facts of the taking, the trial court does not err in failing to instruct on a claim-of-right defense.

1991We note that in Hontz, supra, the court relied on defendant’s experience in the farm equipment business as support for the trial court’s denial of a claim of right instruction saying that: It was implausible that Hontz, with experience himself in the farm implement business, would undertake extrajudicial recovery of a valuable item of equipment without any documentation of his authority to act and with no demonstration or verification of the basis on which the creditor asserted a right to possession of the equipment.

2024See Robinson, 484 S.W.3d at 874-75 (holding a trial court’s failure to give three mandatory instructions resulted in manifest injustice because the jury lacked “sufficient guidance”); see also State v. January, 176 S.W.3d 187, 199 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (holding the failure to instruct on a claim-of-right defense “alone is sufficient for us to find manifest injustice and a miscarriage of justice”); Smith, 154 S.W.3d at 470 (“[W]e find that the omissions by the trial court in instructing the jury on note-taking, as mandated by Note on Use 4 for MAI– CR 3d 302.01, were significant . . . such that

2024See Robinson, 484 S.W.3d at 874-75 (holding a trial court’s failure to give three mandatory instructions resulted in manifest injustice because the jury lacked “sufficient guidance”); see also State v. January, 176 S.W.3d 187, 199 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (holding the failure to instruct on a claim-of-right defense “alone is sufficient for us to find manifest injustice and a miscarriage of justice”); Smith, 154 S.W.3d at 470 (“[W]e find that the omissions by the trial court in instructing the jury on note-taking, as mandated by Note on Use 4 for MAI– CR 3d 302.01, were significant . . . such that

2020“A claim of right defense is a special negative defense for a defendant charged with stealing.” State v. McPike, 514 S.W.3d 86, 88 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017).

2020The defendant bears the burden of injecting a claim of right issue at trial. § 570.070.2; McPike, 514 S.W.3d at 88 .

2017In State v. Smith, a claim of right defense was completely antithetical to the defendants’ theory of the case that they were merely test driving a car and planning to bring it back. 684 S.W.2d 576, 581 (Mo. App. S.D. 1984).

2017See State v. Jackson, 433 S.W.3d 390, 399 (Mo. banc 2014). 3 Viewing the evidence here in the light most favorable to Appellant, we find that he adduced sufficient objective evidence to inject a claim of right defense, warranting Appellant’s proposed verdict directors.

2012See State v. Cox, 741 S.W.2d 74, 77 (Mo.App.1987).

2005As a general proposition: [a]n appellate court will be more inclined to reverse in cases where the erroneous instruction ‘did not merely allow a wrong word or some other ambiguity to exist, [but] excused the State from its burden of proof on [a] contested element of the crime.’ Additionally, this court has previously held that where a verdict director effectively omits an essential element of the offense, such an instruction rises to the level of plain error if the evidence in the case fails to establish the existence of the omitted element ‘beyond serious dispute.’ State v. Harney, 51 S.W.3d

2005In support of its contention that the appellant did not inject the issue of a *196 claim-of-right defense, the State cites three cases, Quisenberry, 639 S.W.2d at 582-83 ; State v. Hontz, 655 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Mo.App.1983); State v. Kramer, 809 S.W.2d 50, 52 (Mo.App.1991), for the proposition that where a defendant asserts he or she had an honest belief, and that assertion flies in the face of the surrounding facts of the taking, the trial court does not err in failing to instruct on a claim-of-right defense.

2005Likewise, in State v. Reynolds, 72 S.W.3d 301, 305-06 (Mo.App.2002), the court, quoting State v. Morrow, 41 S.W.3d 56, 59 (Mo.App.2001), held that: “Manifest injustice results when a defendant meets his burden of injecting the issue of self-defense into the case but the trial court does not submit an instruction on the issue to the jury regardless of whether the defendant requests the instruction.” Logically, this same reasoning would apply to the special negative defense of a claim-of-right defense such that if the issue of whether the appellant had an honest belief that she had a right to he

2005This court, relying on the law of State v. Westfall, held in State v. Beck, 167 S.W.3d 767, 777 (Mo.App.2005), that there is no waiver of plain error even where the defendant requested the instruction at trial that he challenges on appeal.

2005Likewise, in State v. Reynolds, 72 S.W.3d 301, 305-06 (Mo.App.2002), the court, quoting State v. Morrow, 41 S.W.3d 56, 59 (Mo.App.2001), held that: “Manifest injustice results when a defendant meets his burden of injecting the issue of self-defense into the case but the trial court does not submit an instruction on the issue to the jury regardless of whether the defendant requests the instruction.” Logically, this same reasoning would apply to the special negative defense of a claim-of-right defense such that if the issue of whether the appellant had an honest belief that she had a right to he

1984State v. Dixon, 655 S.W.2d 547, 560 (Mo.App.1983).

1982In cases discussing the claim of right defense, in fact, it has usually been described as, "a fair color of claim or title," State v. Homes, 17 Mo. 379, 381 (1852); "in good faith under color of rightful claim," State v. Holtzclaw, 258 S.W.2d 666, 672 (Mo. 1953); State v. Claybaugh, 138 Mo.App. 360 , 122 S.W. 319, 321 (1909); Callahan v. Kelso, 170 Mo.App. 338 , 156 S.W. 716, 718 (1913).

1982In cases discussing the claim of right defense, in fact, it has usually been described as, “a fair color of claim or title,” State v. Homes, 17 Mo. 379, 381 (1852); “in good faith under color of rightful claim,” State v. Holtzclaw, 258 S.W.2d 666, 672 (Mo.1953); State v. Claybaugh, 138 Mo.App. 360 , 122 S.W. 319, 321 (1909); Callahan v. Kelso, 170 Mo.App. 338 , 156 S.W. 716, 718 (1913).

1982In cases discussing the claim of right defense, in fact, it has usually been described as, “a fair color of claim or title,” State v. Homes, 17 Mo. 379, 381 (1852); “in good faith under color of rightful claim,” State v. Holtzclaw, 258 S.W.2d 666, 672 (Mo.1953); State v. Claybaugh, 138 Mo.App. 360 , 122 S.W. 319, 321 (1909); Callahan v. Kelso, 170 Mo.App. 338 , 156 S.W. 716, 718 (1913).

1982In cases discussing the claim of right defense, in fact, it has usually been described as, “a fair color of claim or title,” State v. Homes, 17 Mo. 379, 381 (1852); “in good faith under color of rightful claim,” State v. Holtzclaw, 258 S.W.2d 666, 672 (Mo.1953); State v. Claybaugh, 138 Mo.App. 360 , 122 S.W. 319, 321 (1909); Callahan v. Kelso, 170 Mo.App. 338 , 156 S.W. 716, 718 (1913).

1982In cases discussing the claim of right defense, in fact, it has usually been described as, “a fair color of claim or title,” State v. Homes, 17 Mo. 379, 381 (1852); “in good faith under color of rightful claim,” State v. Holtzclaw, 258 S.W.2d 666, 672 (Mo.1953); State v. Claybaugh, 138 Mo.App. 360 , 122 S.W. 319, 321 (1909); Callahan v. Kelso, 170 Mo.App. 338 , 156 S.W. 716, 718 (1913).

1982In cases discussing the claim of right defense, in fact, it has usually been described as, “a fair color of claim or title,” State v. Homes, 17 Mo. 379, 381 (1852); “in good faith under color of rightful claim,” State v. Holtzclaw, 258 S.W.2d 666, 672 (Mo.1953); State v. Claybaugh, 138 Mo.App. 360 , 122 S.W. 319, 321 (1909); Callahan v. Kelso, 170 Mo.App. 338 , 156 S.W. 716, 718 (1913).