People v. Williams
California Court of Appeal
176 Cal. App. 4th 1521, 98 Cal. Rptr. 3d 770 (2009)
- Written by Arlyn Katen, JD
Facts
Anthony Williams (Williams) (defendant), his brother Kendall Williams (Kendall), and their friend went to Marlene Ayers’s home after Kendall and Ayers had a bad breakup. When Ayers tried to shut her front door, Williams pushed it open. According to witnesses, Kendall directed Williams to pull out a gun, and Williams pulled a gun from his waistband and waived it around while accusing Ayers of stealing Kendall’s car. Williams contested that he did not have a gun and did not need one to get his brother’s property back from a group of women. Kendall demanded car keys and a laptop, and Ayers complied. One of the three men drove away in Ayers’s car, which contained her laptop and other personal items. Ayers admitted that Kendall acted as an intermediary to purchase the car but stated that she gave him money to purchase it and that she bought the laptop with her own birthday money. Williams was charged with burglary and robbery. Williams testified that he was present when Kendall purchased the car and believed that the car belonged to Kendall. At trial, Williams requested that the jury be instructed that Williams may have a claim-of-right defense. The trial court refused to give the jury instruction, reasoning that an accomplice cannot raise a claim-of-right defense regarding property that he does not believe is his. The jury convicted Williams of burglary and acquitted him of robbery, and Williams appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Butz, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 798,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.