People v. Tufunga
21 Cal.4th 935, 987 P.2d 168, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 143 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's good faith belief of a right to specific property negates the felonious intent required for robbery, but this claim-of-right defense does not extend to the forcible taking of money or other property from a debtor to satisfy a debt.
Facts:
- Halaliku Kaloni Tufunga and his ex-wife, Shelly Tufunga, had a history of domestic violence which had resulted in a restraining order against him.
- On January 16, 1996, Tufunga, his first wife, and his daughter went to Shelly's residence, where a verbal and physical altercation began.
- Tufunga assaulted Shelly, pushing her, kicking her, and threatening her with a pair of scissors.
- Shelly’s mother, Josephine, arrived during the incident and gave Shelly $200 in cash for medicine and vitamins, which Shelly placed on a coffee table.
- Shelly and her mother testified that Tufunga grabbed this $200 and ran out of the house.
- Tufunga testified to a different version of events, claiming he had brought the $200 to Shelly's home to help her pay bills.
- Tufunga claimed that during their argument, Shelly took the $200 from the table and put it in her bra.
- Tufunga testified that because he believed Shelly would give the money to her mother instead of using it for bills as intended, he forcibly took the specific $200 cash back from her bra before fleeing.
Procedural Posture:
- Halaliku Kaloni Tufunga was charged by information and tried by a jury in a California superior court (trial court).
- At trial, the court refused the defense's request to instruct the jury on a claim-of-right defense to the robbery charge.
- The jury convicted Tufunga of robbery, battery, spousal abuse, and making terrorist threats.
- Tufunga appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of California granted review to consider the scope of the claim-of-right defense in robbery cases.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the claim-of-right defense, which negates the felonious intent required for robbery, apply to a defendant who uses force to collect a debt, as opposed to recovering specific personal property?
Opinions:
Majority - Baxter, J.
No. The claim-of-right defense applies only to the recovery of specific property and cannot be used as a defense to a robbery charge when a defendant uses force to collect a debt. The court affirmed that the claim-of-right defense is a part of California law because the crime of robbery requires a 'felonious taking,' meaning an intent to steal. One cannot intend to steal property that one genuinely, even if mistakenly, believes is their own specific property. The court reasoned that this principle was incorporated into the robbery statute from common law and cannot be judicially eliminated due to the separation of powers. However, the court found that its prior ruling in People v. Butler, which extended this defense to debt collection, was contrary to public policy and unsupported by statute. Public policy strongly disfavors self-help through violence, and allowing individuals to use force to settle debts would be 'in conflict with the very idea of social order.' The court drew a critical distinction between taking specific, identifiable property (like the very same dollar bills one just handed over) and taking fungible money from a debtor's possession to satisfy a general debt. Therefore, the court overruled Butler to the extent it permitted the claim-of-right defense in forcible debt collection scenarios.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of the claim-of-right defense in California by overruling the 30-year-old precedent of People v. Butler. It creates a clear distinction between reclaiming specific property and collecting a debt, bringing California law in line with the majority of other jurisdictions. The ruling reinforces a strong public policy against violent self-help, effectively eliminating a defense for those who use force or intimidation to settle financial disputes. Going forward, defendants charged with robbery can only assert a claim-of-right defense if they can show a good faith belief that they owned the specific item taken, not merely that the victim owed them money or property of equivalent value.
