Also known as: claim-of-right defense · claim of right
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A principle negating the fraudulent or felonious intent required for theft crimes such as larceny and embezzlement when the defendant honestly believes the property belongs to them or that they hold a right to take or retain it. The belief need not be reasonable so long as it is genuine and held in good faith. Open retention of the property tends to support the existence of the claim.
Carlos Castillo and his predecessors fenced and farmed a six-foot strip of land they believed belonged to their parcel because of an erroneous plat. They mowed, gardened, and maintained the strip seasonally for more than ten years without permission from the record owner. The court allows tacking of the periods because the good-faith belief supplies the required claim of right.
Cade Carpenter returns to his former apartment after an unlawful lockout and uses minimal force to reenter when he believes the landlord has no right to keep him out. The circumstances appear urgent because postponing entry until a court order would cause exceptional hardship. The claim of right supports the privilege to use force under the statute.
Caleb Chang resists force used by a possessor who is removing Chang's tools from a shared worksite. Chang knows the possessor acts under a claim of right to protect the property. The limitation on resistance applies and Chang may not use force to oppose the removal.
Christine Castro faces a threat inside her workplace from a person asserting ownership of equipment she holds. She knows she can safely retreat or surrender the items. The claim of right asserted by the other party requires her to retreat before using deadly force.
Connor Clark posts messages he believes are protected speech about recovering money he thinks is owed to him. The messages are later charged as threats. His honest belief that he holds a claim of right to the funds negates any criminal intent required for the offense.
Anthony Douglas Elonis was an active user of the social networking website Facebook. In May 2010, Elonis’s wife of nearly seven years left him, taking with her their two young children. Elonis began listening to more violent music and posting self-styled rap lyrics inspired by the music under the pseudonym Tone Dougie. The lyrics Elonis posted included graphically violent language and imagery concerning his wife, co-workers, a kindergarten class, and state and federal law enforcement. This material was often interspersed with disclaimers that the lyrics were fictitious with no intentional resemblance to real persons. Elonis posted a photograph of himself holding a toy knife against a co-worker’s neck with the caption I wish, after which the chief of park security fired him. Elonis posted an adaptation of a satirical sketch in which he substituted his wife for the President. The posting described firing a mortar launcher at her house from the cornfield behind it. After viewing some of Elonis’s posts, his wife felt extremely afraid for her life and obtained a three-year protection-from-abuse order against him. Elonis posted about the order and referenced having enough explosives to take care of the State Police and the Sheriff’s Department. Elonis posted an entry stating he had enough elementary schools in a ten mile radius to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever imagined. After park security informed the FBI, agents monitored Elonis’s Facebook activity and visited his house. Elonis then posted Little Agent Lady describing slitting an FBI agent’s throat and detonating a bomb. A grand jury indicted Elonis on five counts of violating 18 U.S.C. §875(c). At trial Elonis requested a jury instruction that the government must prove that he intended to communicate a true threat. The District Court instead instructed the jury that a statement is a true threat when a defendant intentionally makes a statement in a context wherein a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted as a serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily injury. The jury convicted Elonis on four of the five counts. The Third Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseColin Chambers seizes bananas grown on land he believes his company owns under a foreign grant. The seizure occurs outside the United States. The claim of right asserted in the foreign title prevents the conduct from constituting theft under domestic law.
The defendant, a New Jersey corporation organized in 1899, had bought the property and business of several of its previous competitors with provision against their resuming the trade. It made contracts with others regulating the quantity to be purchased and the price to be paid. It acquired a controlling amount of stock in still others. All of this was done with the intent to prevent competition and to control and monopolize the banana trade. It also organized a selling company of which it held the stock. By agreement the company sold at fixed prices all the bananas of the combining parties. In 1903 McConnell started a banana plantation in Panama, then part of the United States of Colombia. He began to build a railway which would afford his only means of export. Both actions were in accordance with the laws of the United States of Colombia. The defendant notified McConnell that he must either combine or stop. Two months later the governor of Panama recommended to his national government that Costa Rica be allowed to administer the territory through which the railroad was to run. In November 1903 Panama revolted and became an independent republic declaring its boundary to be that settled by the award. In June 1904 the plaintiff, an Alabama corporation organized in 1904, bought out McConnell and went on with the work as it had a right to do under the laws of Panama. But in July Costa Rican soldiers and officials seized a part of the plantation and a cargo of supplies and have held them ever since and stopped the construction and operation of the plantation and railway. In August, one Astua, by ex parte proceedings, got a judgment from a Costa Rican court declaring the plantation to be his. Although the proceedings were not within the jurisdiction of Costa Rica and were contrary to its laws and void, agents of the defendant then bought the lands from Astua. The plaintiff has tried to induce the government of Costa Rica to withdraw its soldiers. The plaintiff also has tried to persuade the United States to interfere but has been thwarted in both by the defendant and has failed. As a result of the defendant's acts the plaintiff has been deprived of the use of the plantation and the railway and the plantation and supplies have been injured. The Circuit Court dismissed the complaint upon motion as not setting forth a cause of action. This judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. The case then was brought to this court by writ of error.
View caseYes. A bona fide claim of right negates the fraudulent intent required for embezzlement just as it negates the trespassory taking in larceny. The defense succeeds when the defendant honestly believes the property constitutes compensation owed by the owner.
No. The defense requires only an honest belief, even if mistaken. Courts focus on whether the defendant subjectively believed they held a right to the property rather than whether that belief was objectively reasonable.
No. The defense is unavailable for crimes involving force or coercion because the legislature has declined to authorize it for robbery and extortion. Policy considerations against self-help through violence support the limitation.
Open and undisguised retention tends to support the existence of a bona fide claim. Secretive conduct, by contrast, undermines the defense because it suggests awareness that the taking was wrongful.
…“1. For the purposes of this Act— “(1) A person steals who, without the consent of the owner, fraudulently and without a claim of right made in good faith, takes and carries away anything capable of being stolen with intent, at the time of such taking, permanently to deprive the owner thereof: “Provided that a person…