860 S.E.2d 53
Va.2021Background
- Pena Pinedo and his cousin Lafferty ran a joint illegal drug operation; T.B. (age 17) stole $5,600 from Lafferty, part of which belonged to Pena Pinedo.
- Through rumors they believed T.B. gave the money to her boyfriend, Kamau Imani; Pena Pinedo sought to recover the money and arranged a meeting under a marijuana deal pretext.
- At the meeting Pena Pinedo and accomplices approached T.B. and Imani in a car, pointed firearms, demanded money, Pena Pinedo took a wad of cash from Imani and shot him; Imani later died.
- Pena Pinedo was tried and convicted of felony murder, robbery, conspiracy, and using a firearm in the commission of a felony.
- At trial Pena Pinedo requested the Virginia model claim-of-right jury instruction asserting a good-faith belief he was reclaiming stolen money; the trial court refused the instruction, finding no more than a scintilla of evidence of a bona fide claim because the money was drug proceeds.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court of Virginia likewise affirmed, holding one cannot have a good-faith legal claim to contraband or proceeds of crime.
Issues
| Issue | Pena Pinedo's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing the model claim-of-right jury instruction | Pena Pinedo argued he subjectively believed he had a good-faith right to recover money stolen from his drug partner, so lack of intent to steal negated robbery | The money was proceeds of illegal drug activity (contraband/fruits of crime); one cannot have a bona fide legal claim to contraband, so no claim-of-right applies | Affirmed refusal: no more than a scintilla of evidence of a bona fide claim of right because the money was drug proceeds |
Key Cases Cited
- Butts v. Commonwealth, 145 Va. 800 (1926) (establishes claim-of-right defense to robbery and requirement of bona fide belief)
- Pierce v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 528 (1964) (claim of right negates criminal intent if bona fide; sham claims fail)
- Commonwealth v. Sands, 262 Va. 724 (2001) (jury instruction must be supported by more than a scintilla of evidence)
- Cooper v. Commonwealth, 277 Va. 377 (2009) (trial court discretion on jury instructions; instructions must clearly state law and cover issues raised)
- Pena Pinedo v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 74 (2020) (Court of Appeals held one cannot have good-faith claim of right to contraband or fruits of a crime)
- Zysk v. Zysk, 239 Va. 32 (1990) (courts will not assist participants in illegal acts to profit from them)