Commonwealth v. Kartozia

Holding

In an appeal considering whether the circuit court erred in denying a jury instruction, proposed by the defendant, regarding a good-faith claim-of-right defense to a trespassing charge, there is no evidence that the defendant harbored a good-faith belief that he was entitled to remain on the condominium property where he was arrested and — even if his belief in a claim of right was sincere — the objective facts upon which he purportedly relied, did not rise to the level of being an authorization for him to remain on the property. Thus, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by determining that defendant’s proposed instruction was not supported by more than a scintilla of credible evidence. Additionally, the tendered instruction only applied to the defendant’s right to enter the property, which was not at issue. There was no evidence that the defendant’s belief that he was entitled to remain on the premises, after being directed to leave by security and police officers, was supported by objectively reasonable facts, such that the belief might have been held sincerely and in good faith. And even if defendant’s claim was sincere, it was not based on a facially valid authorization to remain on the premises. The circuit court’s decision to deny the good-faith belief instruction was not an abuse of discretion, and the Court of Appeals erred in concluding otherwise. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the judgment of the circuit court reinstated.