claim-of-right defense in Connecticut

2001The claim of right requirement serves to ensure that permissive uses will not ripen into easements by prescription by requiring that the disputed use be adverse to the rights of the owner of the servient tenement.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Crandall v. Gould, 244 Conn. 583, 590-91 , 711 A.2d 682 (1998).

2001The claim of right requirement serves to ensure that permissive uses will not ripen into easements by prescription by requiring that the disputed use be adverse to the rights of the owner of the servient tenement.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Crandall v. Gould, 244 Conn. 583, 590-91 , 711 A.2d 682 (1998).

2001Use made under a claim of right means use that is made ‘without recognition of the rights of the owner of the servient tenement.’ Zavisza v. Hastings, 143 Conn. 40, 46 , 118 A.2d 902 (1955). ‘To establish an easement by prescription it is absolutely essential that the use be adverse.

2001Use made under a claim of right means use that is made ‘without recognition of the rights of the owner of the servient tenement.’ Zavisza v. Hastings, 143 Conn. 40, 46 , 118 A.2d 902 (1955). ‘To establish an easement by prescription it is absolutely essential that the use be adverse.

2015App. 3d 691, 693 , 336 N.E.2d 199 (1975) (‘‘a creditor may not employ violence, threats, or weapons to collect the debt but should pursue his remedies in the normal channels of peaceful and legal redress’’); State v. Mejia, 141 N.J. 475, 499 , 662 A.2d 308 (1995) (‘‘emerging trend in other jurisdictions rejects the claim-of-right defense to robbery’’), overruled on other grounds by State v. Cooper, 151 N.J. 326, 377 , 700 A.2d 306 (1997).

2015App. 3d 691, 693 , 336 N.E.2d 199 (1975) (‘‘a creditor may not employ violence, threats, or weapons to collect the debt but should pursue his remedies in the normal channels of peaceful and legal redress’’); State v. Mejia, 141 N.J. 475, 499 , 662 A.2d 308 (1995) (‘‘emerging trend in other jurisdictions rejects the claim-of-right defense to robbery’’), overruled on other grounds by State v. Cooper, 151 N.J. 326, 377 , 700 A.2d 306 (1997).

2014Our Supreme Court enunciated in State v. Main, 75 Conn. 55, 59 , 52 A. 257 (1902): ‘‘[T]o constitute the crime there must be not only a wrongful taking, but a wrongful taking with the intent of thus depriving the real owner of his property by appropriating it to the use of the taker; that although the property of another is wrongfully taken, yet if taken through mistake, theft is not committed; there must be a taking with a criminal intent and, as bearing upon the facts and claims in the case, a felonious taking requires a knowledge in the taker that the thing taken is the property of another,

2014Our Supreme Court enunciated in State v. Main, 75 Conn. 55, 59 , 52 A. 257 (1902): ‘‘[T]o constitute the crime there must be not only a wrongful taking, but a wrongful taking with the intent of thus depriving the real owner of his property by appropriating it to the use of the taker; that although the property of another is wrongfully taken, yet if taken through mistake, theft is not committed; there must be a taking with a criminal intent and, as bearing upon the facts and claims in the case, a felonious taking requires a knowledge in the taker that the thing taken is the property of another,

2014The law of larceny distinguishes between (1) a claim of right in specific property that a defendant seeks to satisfy by retaking that specific property, and (2) a claim of right that arises from a debt that a defendant seeks to satisfy by taking any currency or property as payment for that debt. ‘‘A claim of right defense . . . must encompass (1) some form of pre-existing ownership or possession of (2) specific property.’’ (Emphasis in original.) State v. Stenger, 122 Haw. 271, 285 , 226 P.3d 441 (2010). ‘‘[S]elf-help by a person who claims that the victim of his or her taking owes that person

2014The law of larceny distinguishes between (1) a claim of right in specific property that a defendant seeks to satisfy by retaking that specific property, and (2) a claim of right that arises from a debt that a defendant seeks to satisfy by taking any currency or property as payment for that debt. ‘‘A claim of right defense . . . must encompass (1) some form of pre-existing ownership or possession of (2) specific property.’’ (Emphasis in original.) State v. Stenger, 122 Haw. 271, 285 , 226 P.3d 441 (2010). ‘‘[S]elf-help by a person who claims that the victim of his or her taking owes that person

2014Consistent with this principle, a past iteration of New York’s larceny statute that character- ized a claim of right defense as an affirmative defense was deemed unconstitutional because the characteriza- tion ‘‘impermissibly shifted the burden onto the defen- dant to disprove the element of intent.’’ People v. Green, 5 N.Y.3d 538, 542 , 841 N.E.2d 289 , 807 N.Y.S.2d 321 (2005).9 C The evidence before the jury was clear about how the $294 came into the complainant’s possession, and the complainant testified repeatedly that the money belonged to the defendant.

2014Consistent with this principle, a past iteration of New York’s larceny statute that character- ized a claim of right defense as an affirmative defense was deemed unconstitutional because the characteriza- tion ‘‘impermissibly shifted the burden onto the defen- dant to disprove the element of intent.’’ People v. Green, 5 N.Y.3d 538, 542 , 841 N.E.2d 289 , 807 N.Y.S.2d 321 (2005).9 C The evidence before the jury was clear about how the $294 came into the complainant’s possession, and the complainant testified repeatedly that the money belonged to the defendant.

2014A person who sees a burglar emerge from her home car- rying what she believes to be bundles of cash she had left under her bed has a claim of right defense if she takes the cash back by force and it turns out that it was not hers.’’ (Citations omitted.) People v. Pagan, 19 N.Y.3d 91 , 97–98, 968 N.E.2d 960 , 945 N.Y.S.2d 606 (2012).

2014A person who sees a burglar emerge from her home car- rying what she believes to be bundles of cash she had left under her bed has a claim of right defense if she takes the cash back by force and it turns out that it was not hers.’’ (Citations omitted.) People v. Pagan, 19 N.Y.3d 91 , 97–98, 968 N.E.2d 960 , 945 N.Y.S.2d 606 (2012).

2003Powell, Real Property (1997) § 34-10, pp. 34-111 through 34-133.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Kelley v. Tomas, 66 Conn. App. 146, 159 , 783 A.2d 1226 (2001).

2003Powell, Real Property (1997) § 34-10, pp. 34-111 through 34-133.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Kelley v. Tomas, 66 Conn. App. 146, 159 , 783 A.2d 1226 (2001).