In a claim-of-right claim, what is the effect of the Court's instruction on good faith?

We disagree with Selivanov, however, to the extent he contends that "the jury was left unequipped to consider the ample evidence at trial pointing to [his] lack of guilt" under a claim-of-right theory. "[A] failure to instruct where there is a duty to do so can be cured if it is shown that 'the factual question posed by the omitted instruction was necessarily resolved adversely to the defendant under other, properly given instructions.' [Citation.]" (People v. Stewart, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 141.)¹⁷ That showing was made here. The court instructed the jury on good faith, a necessary element of the claim-of-right defense, and the jury nonetheless returned guilty verdicts on all of the embezzlement counts. By making these findings, the jury demonstrated that it necessarily rejected one of the key elements of the claim-of-right defense.

Selivanov asserts that the court's instruction on good faith was too narrow, because it "only told the jury that acting with authorization could serve as a defense," rather than informing the jury that claim of title was at issue. He relies on People v.

Page 50