What is the test for a claim of right instruction in a personal injury case?

The trial court had no sua sponte duty to give such an instruction because there was no substantial evidence to show that appellant reasonably believed that she had a right to the money. (People v. Felix (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 905, 911.) Hence, the trial court did not err in failing to instruct on claim-of-right.

Having examined the record, we are persuaded that even if the trial court erred in failing to give a claim-of-right instruction, that error was harmless under any standard of review. (Cf. Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.) Sherry's finances were depleted and the testimony and evidence that large sums of money were transferred from Sherry to appellant was uncontroverted. Given the state of the trial evidence we are convinced that had a claim-of-right instruction been given the result of appellant's trial would have been the same.