In what circumstances will the court allow a plaintiff to argue that they have a claim of right over the victim's purse?

In claim-of-right cases there is usually some facially legitimate reason for asserting a good faith belief in the right to another's property. (See People v. Marsh (1962) 58 Cal.2d 732, 737 [defendants' belief in the curative power of their electrical apparatus was based on information from doctors and scientists]; People v. Russell, supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1429-1431 [defendant testified he believed motorcycle had been abandoned, testimony supported by cycle's condition and location, and by defendant's non-furtive conduct].) Defense counsel argued to the jury that appellant acted in an irrational manner but there was no evidence that appellant had taken the purse in the belief that it was her own and her actions in doing so were inconsistent with a claim-of-right defense.

The trial court had no sua sponte duty to give such an instruction because there was no substantial evidence to show that appellant reasonably believed that she had a right to the property. (People v. Felix (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 905, 911.) Hence, the trial court did not err in failing to instruct on claim-of-right.

Having examined the record, we are persuaded that even if the trial court erred in failing to give a claim-of-right instruction, that error was harmless under any standard of review. (Cf. Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.) The victim's testimony was uncontroverted. Given the state of the trial evidence and the fact that the jury returned its verdict after 37 minutes of deliberation, we are convinced that had a claim-of-right instruction been given the result of appellant's trial would have been the same.