What is the test for good faith in 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. Threestar (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 747, 213 Cal.Rptr. 510 (Threestar ). There, the defendant was accused of embezzlement in connection with his retention and sale of audio speaker stands after the business for which he worked disbanded. The prosecution theorized that the defendant and the owner of the business agreed that defendant would sell the business's current inventory of stands on a commission basis. Contrary to this arrangement, defendant ordered additional stands and sold them without informing the business owner or distributing her full share of the profits to her. Defendant claimed that no agreement existed. According to his theory, he owned the patent rights to the stands and made voluntary payments to the business owner "to help her recoup her losses in the corporation." (See Threestar , supra , 167 Cal.App.3d at pp. 751752, 213 Cal.Rptr. 510.) He claimed he had a good faith belief that he could lawfully sell the speaker stands, and that the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on the claim-of-right defense. (Id. at p. 753, 213 Cal.Rptr. 510.) We agreed. (Ibid. ) We further concluded that the instruction the court delivered could have misled the jury. We held that the pertinent part of the instruction, "if one takes business proceeds in the good faith belief he has permission to keep such proceeds he is not guilty of theft," did not "address the defense theory of the evidence that no such sales agreement existed." (Id. at p. 756, 213 Cal.Rptr. 510.) We found the error prejudicial because, under the instructions given, "the jury did not necessarily find that appellant lacked a good faith belief that he was acting pursuant to a lawful claim of title based on his patent rights." (Id. at pp. 756757, 213 Cal.Rptr. 510.) We also noted that the instructions given omitted mention of the "open and avowed" element of the claim-of-right defense. (Id. at p. 756, 213 Cal.Rptr. 510.)