News & Insights
Virginia Supreme Court Weighs in on Good-Faith Claim-of-Right Defense
Commonwealth v. Kartozia, Record No. 240294 (Va. June 6, 2025)
The Supreme Court of Virginia releases one opinion today in which it addresses the “good-faith claim-of-right defense.”
Turnberry Tower is a high-rise condominium building. Just after midnight on a Wednesday, building security found Luka Kartozia at the back entrance, which was reserved for residents with keycards. Kartozia was acting oddly, doing squats, pacing in the resident dog park, and charging his phone using the building’s outdoor outlets. Security told Kartozia that he needed to leave unless he was a resident or visiting a resident. Kartozia claimed he knew a resident named Phil Yang but refused to contact Yang. Security contacted police, who arrived and asked Kartozia to leave “at least six or seven times.” Kartozia continued to both refuse to leave and refuse to contact Yang. After 1.5 hours on the property, police arrested Kartozia for trespassing.
At trial, security guards testified that unaccompanied visitors are required to check-in with the concierge at the front of the building. The concierge would contact the resident, who would then come meet the visitor. Yang testified on behalf of Kartozia that he did live in the building and that Kartozia had visited him there before. He did not know, however, that Kartozia was in the building or intended to visit him on the night Kartozia was arrested. Kartozia testified in his defense that he did not believe that he was trespassing and that he had a right to be there because he was visiting Yang.
At the close of evidence, Kartozia asked that the jury be instructed on a good-faith claim-of-right defense. This defense states that a person who genuinely believes that they have a legal right to be somewhere—even if that belief is mistaken—is not guilty of trespassing. The trial court refused, and the jury convicted Kartozia. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the instruction should have been given. The Commonwealth then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated Kartozia’s conviction. It found that for a claim-of-right defense, a person needs a sincere, good-faith belief that they are authorized to be where they are, but that this belief must be based on objective facts that would create a valid authorization. Here, the Court found no objective facts to support Kartozia’s claimed belief that he was entitled to be on the property. He knew the procedure to visit residents, had followed the procedure when visiting Yang before, refused all opportunities to contact Yang or have security contact him, and was repeatedly told by security and police to leave. As the Court put it, “Kartozia’s source of authorization cannot be himself.”
The court emphasized that even if Kartozia had permission to enter the property to visit Yang, this did not mean he had permission to stay there after being told to leave by authorized personnel. The Supreme Court found that no reasonable person could believe that they were permitted to remain on private property after being told multiple times to leave by security, being given conditional permission to stay only if they contacted a resident, refusing to meet those condition, and then being ordered to leave “six or seven times” by police.