claim-of-right instruction in District of Columbia

2022However, assuming without deciding that the trial court erred in failing to give a claim of right instruction for the burglary charge, any error was harmless. 7 See, e.g., Smith v. United States, 330 A.2d 519, 521 (D.C. 1974) (a defendant could not assert the claim of right defense when the defendant attempted to retrieve a drug debt of $30 and instead took $500); Robertson v. United States, 429 A.2d 192, 195-96 (D.C. 1981) (affirming the denial of a claim of right instruction when the defendant embezzled $601.99 from his employer but was only entitled to $200). 18 “To find an instructional er

2022However, assuming without deciding that the trial court erred in failing to give a claim of right instruction for the burglary charge, any error was harmless. 7 See, e.g., Smith v. United States, 330 A.2d 519, 521 (D.C. 1974) (a defendant could not assert the claim of right defense when the defendant attempted to retrieve a drug debt of $30 and instead took $500); Robertson v. United States, 429 A.2d 192, 195-96 (D.C. 1981) (affirming the denial of a claim of right instruction when the defendant embezzled $601.99 from his employer but was only entitled to $200). 18 “To find an instructional er

2025Analysis The claim-of-right defense to robbery was first recognized in this jurisdiction in Richardson v. United States, 403 F.2d 574, 575-76 (D.C.

2022Id. 6 In this case, appellant asserts that there was enough evidence to support a claim of right defense because he only intended to help Ahmed recover her own property and therefore lacked an intent to take property to which he and Ahmed were not entitled.

1988Rhodes v. United States, 354 A.2d 863, 864 (D.C.1976).

1981Compare Smith v. United States, D.C.App., 330 A.2d 519 (1974) (appellant was not entitled to an instruction on the claim of right defense where the amount allegedly obtained by him was $30 while the amount taken from the robbery victim exceeded $500) and Rhodes v. United States, D.C.App., 354 A.2d 863 (1976) (same) with Richardson v. United States, 131 U.S.App.D.C. 168 , 403 F.2d 574 (1968) (appellant was entitled to a claim of right instruction where the amount allegedly owed to him ($270) far exceeded the amount taken from the robbery victim ($98)).

2025See, e.g., Wilson v. United States, 266 A.3d 228 , 238 (D.C. 2022) (defense available if defendant has good-faith belief that defendant is “legally entitled to the property” taken; arguably suggesting that defense would be inapplicable where additional property taken); Simmons v. United States, 554 A.2d 1167 , 1169 n.5 (D.C. 1989) (questioning whether defense applies where defendant was seeking to recover illegal debt); Townsend v. United States, 549 A.2d 724 , 727 n.6 (D.C. 1988) (holding that defense is not applicable if amount or nature of what is taken exceeds amount owed; citing cases).

2020See, e.g., Bell v. United States, 950 A.2d 56, 69 (D.C. 2008); Simmons v. United States, 554 A.2d 1167, 1169 (D.C. 1989); Criminal Jury Instructions, No. 4.300 cmt. (“Robbery”).9 A claim of right defense asserts that a defendant had a 8 Because we hold that the firearm-related convictions can be sustained under co-conspiracy liability, we do not reach appellant’s argument that these convictions could not have been sustained only under aiding and abetting liability. 9 More recently, however, we have expressed concern regarding the use of specific intent and general intent as categories of mens

2022However, assuming without deciding that the trial court erred in failing to give a claim of right instruction for the burglary charge, any error was harmless. 7 See, e.g., Smith v. United States, 330 A.2d 519, 521 (D.C. 1974) (a defendant could not assert the claim of right defense when the defendant attempted to retrieve a drug debt of $30 and instead took $500); Robertson v. United States, 429 A.2d 192, 195-96 (D.C. 1981) (affirming the denial of a claim of right instruction when the defendant embezzled $601.99 from his employer but was only entitled to $200). 18 “To find an instructional er

2022However, assuming without deciding that the trial court erred in failing to give a claim of right instruction for the burglary charge, any error was harmless. 7 See, e.g., Smith v. United States, 330 A.2d 519, 521 (D.C. 1974) (a defendant could not assert the claim of right defense when the defendant attempted to retrieve a drug debt of $30 and instead took $500); Robertson v. United States, 429 A.2d 192, 195-96 (D.C. 1981) (affirming the denial of a claim of right instruction when the defendant embezzled $601.99 from his employer but was only entitled to $200). 18 “To find an instructional er

2022“An error will be harmless, and will not be reversible, when the instructions the court actually gave ‘adequately presented the defense theory’ and ‘properly inform[ed] the jury of the applicable legal principles involved,’ despite the erroneous omission.” Id. (quoting Gray v. United States, 549 A.2d 347, 351 (D.C. 1988) and Stewart v. United States, 687 A.2d 576, 578 (D.C. 1996)).

2022“An error will be harmless, and will not be reversible, when the instructions the court actually gave ‘adequately presented the defense theory’ and ‘properly inform[ed] the jury of the applicable legal principles involved,’ despite the erroneous omission.” Id. (quoting Gray v. United States, 549 A.2d 347, 351 (D.C. 1988) and Stewart v. United States, 687 A.2d 576, 578 (D.C. 1996)).

2022“An error will be harmless, and will not be reversible, when the instructions the court actually gave ‘adequately presented the defense theory’ and ‘properly inform[ed] the jury of the applicable legal principles involved,’ despite the erroneous omission.” Id. (quoting Gray v. United States, 549 A.2d 347, 351 (D.C. 1988) and Stewart v. United States, 687 A.2d 576, 578 (D.C. 1996)).

2022“Generally, [w]hen a defendant requests an instruction on a theory of the case that negates his guilt of the crime charged, and that instruction is supported by any evidence, however weak, an instruction stating the substance of the defendant’s theory must be given.” Higgenbottom v. United States, 923 A.2d 891, 899 (D.C. 2007) (quoting Gray v. United States, 549 A.2d 347, 349 (D.C. 1988)).

2022However, assuming without deciding that the trial court erred in failing to give a claim of right instruction for the burglary charge, any error was harmless. 7 See, e.g., Smith v. United States, 330 A.2d 519, 521 (D.C. 1974) (a defendant could not assert the claim of right defense when the defendant attempted to retrieve a drug debt of $30 and instead took $500); Robertson v. United States, 429 A.2d 192, 195-96 (D.C. 1981) (affirming the denial of a claim of right instruction when the defendant embezzled $601.99 from his employer but was only entitled to $200). 18 “To find an instructional er

2022However, assuming without deciding that the trial court erred in failing to give a claim of right instruction for the burglary charge, any error was harmless. 7 See, e.g., Smith v. United States, 330 A.2d 519, 521 (D.C. 1974) (a defendant could not assert the claim of right defense when the defendant attempted to retrieve a drug debt of $30 and instead took $500); Robertson v. United States, 429 A.2d 192, 195-96 (D.C. 1981) (affirming the denial of a claim of right instruction when the defendant embezzled $601.99 from his employer but was only entitled to $200). 18 “To find an instructional er

2020See Carrell v. United States, 165 A.3d 314 , 323-34 & nn. 26 & 27 (D.C. 2017) (en banc). 21 good faith belief in his or her right to take an item, which negates the intent element of robbery.

2020See, e.g., Bell v. United States, 950 A.2d 56, 69 (D.C. 2008); Simmons v. United States, 554 A.2d 1167, 1169 (D.C. 1989); Criminal Jury Instructions, No. 4.300 cmt. (“Robbery”).9 A claim of right defense asserts that a defendant had a 8 Because we hold that the firearm-related convictions can be sustained under co-conspiracy liability, we do not reach appellant’s argument that these convictions could not have been sustained only under aiding and abetting liability. 9 More recently, however, we have expressed concern regarding the use of specific intent and general intent as categories of mens

1981See Poteat v. United States, D.C.App., 363 A.2d 295, 296 (1976) (the relevancy of evidence is determined by whether it relates to an issue in the case).

1976The version that went to the jury was that Tazel sold Howard some adulterated narcotics for $30, and that appellant and his companions went to Tazel’s apartment to obtain a refund of the purchase price. 7 The standard for determining whether a particular defense instruction is required on request was articulated in Belton v. United States, 127 U.S.App.D.C. 201 , 206, 382 F.2d 150, 155 (1967), quoting from Stevenson v. United States, 162 U.S. 313, 315, 323 , 16 S.Ct. 839 , 40 L.Ed. 980 (1896): [A]n accused is entitled to an instruction . if there is “any evidence fairly tending to bear upon the

1976The version that went to the jury was that Tazel sold Howard some adulterated narcotics for $30, and that appellant and his companions went to Tazel’s apartment to obtain a refund of the purchase price. 7 The standard for determining whether a particular defense instruction is required on request was articulated in Belton v. United States, 127 U.S.App.D.C. 201 , 206, 382 F.2d 150, 155 (1967), quoting from Stevenson v. United States, 162 U.S. 313, 315, 323 , 16 S.Ct. 839 , 40 L.Ed. 980 (1896): [A]n accused is entitled to an instruction . if there is “any evidence fairly tending to bear upon the

1976The version that went to the jury was that Tazel sold Howard some adulterated narcotics for $30, and that appellant and his companions went to Tazel’s apartment to obtain a refund of the purchase price. 7 The standard for determining whether a particular defense instruction is required on request was articulated in Belton v. United States, 127 U.S.App.D.C. 201 , 206, 382 F.2d 150, 155 (1967), quoting from Stevenson v. United States, 162 U.S. 313, 315, 323 , 16 S.Ct. 839 , 40 L.Ed. 980 (1896): [A]n accused is entitled to an instruction . if there is “any evidence fairly tending to bear upon the