Criminal: Conviction for criminal trespassing is reinstated

Where a man convicted of criminal trespassing argued the circuit court should have instructed the jury on his defense that he had a good-faith belief that he was entitled to be on the property, this argument was rejected. There were no objective facts from which the man could have concluded that he had a right to be present, and building security and law enforcement repeatedly asked him to leave, to no avail.

Background

Luka Kartozia was found guilty of criminal trespassing. In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s judgment, vacated Kartozia’s trespass conviction and remanded the case for retrial. It reasoned that the circuit court erred in denying a jury instruction, proposed by the defendant, regarding a good-faith claim-of-right defense to a trespassing charge.

Analysis

To be entitled to an instruction on the claim-of-right defense, Kartozia was required to present evidence that he possessed a genuine, good-faith belief, supported by purported objective facts, that he was authorized to remain on the Turnberry Tower property on the evening in question. There is no evidence of purported objective facts, or even inferences from purported objective facts, which support Kartozia’s assertion that he had a reasonable, good-faith belief that he was authorized to remain on the premises after being warned to leave and making no effort whatsoever to contact Phil Yang, a resident.

Even assuming, for argument’s sake only, that Kartozia actually and sincerely believed that he had some legal right to remain on the premises of Turnberry Tower simply because he knew Yang lived in the building, a sincere belief alone is not sufficient to create a bona fide claim of right. To do so, Kartozia was additionally required to present evidence that his claim of right amounted to, at minimum, a facially valid authorization. He did not do so. The record is devoid of any evidence that anyone with the power to authorize Kartozia to remain on the premises had authorized him to do so.

Likewise, it is of no consequence that Kartozia believed he was entitled to do as he pleased on what he knew to be private property because he “knew [he] was there for Phil.” Kartozia’s source of authorization cannot be himself.

There is no dispute as to Turnberry Tower’s standard operating procedure for residents’ guests. Visitors are to arrive at the main entrance and check in with the concierge, who will contact the host resident. Kartozia followed this procedure during previous visits to Yang; there was no testimony that Kartozia had ever used an entrance other than the front entrance when visiting Yang.

On the night in question, however, Kartozia did not use the front entrance, did not check-in with the concierge and did not ask the concierge to contact Yang. Instead, building security discovered Kartozia alone in the rear garden area of the building. Additionally, Kartozia did not inform security staff that he was there to visit Yang—only that he knew Yang.

Yang testified that visitors must be accompanied by a resident and are not allowed to “wander around” the property unescorted. Kartozia had never been authorized to spend time enjoying the amenities on the Turnberry Tower property unaccompanied by a resident, nor had he ever done so prior to the night in question.

While there is no evidence that Kartozia had a good faith belief that he was permitted to remain in the back of Turnberry Tower in the middle of the night, unaccompanied by a resident, there is ample evidence in the record that Kartozia was affirmatively and repeatedly told that he was not permitted to do that. Security staff and law enforcement clearly informed Kartozia that he was on private property; he was not permitted to “just loiter” and “stand around” and he needed to leave the premises unless he was (1) there to see a resident, (2) the resident was contacted and (3) the resident came to claim Kartozia as a guest.

Moreover, there was testimony that police officers instructed Kartozia to leave the premises “six or seven times,” but Kartozia refused. There is nothing conditional about six or seven directives by law enforcement to leave private property. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the judgment of the circuit court is reinstated.

Reversed and final judgment.

Commonwealth v. Kartozia, Record No. 240294, June 5, 2025 (Goodwyn). From the Court of Appeals of Virginia. VLW 025-6-018. 14 pp.