Reported / Citable
Background
Alberto Barraza forcibly cut portions of Nikko G.’s long hair during an attack and fatally stabbed him. Prosecutors treated the hair as property taken by robbery, and the jury convicted Barraza of first degree felony murder with robbery as the predicate felony, along with assault with a deadly weapon.
The appeal presented a question of first impression: whether growing hair still attached to a person’s body is personal property capable of being taken by robbery.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal held that attached human hair is part of the body, not personal property under Penal Code section 211. California generally regulates human tissue through specialized statutes rather than ordinary property law, and no statute converts hair severed and taken in a continuous act into property as the Legislature has done for crops and fixtures.
Because the evidence did not establish robbery or attempted robbery, it could not sustain felony murder predicated on robbery. The court reversed the judgment while emphasizing that the conduct could constitute assault, a felony the Legislature did not include among first degree felony-murder predicates.
Key Takeaways
- Hair still attached to a victim is not personal property for California robbery law.
- Forcibly severing bodily material does not itself transform it into property before the force is applied.
- Courts will not extend felony-murder predicates beyond the crimes selected by the Legislature.
- The ruling concerns robbery’s property element, not whether the violent conduct is independently criminal.
Why It Matters
The decision limits an expansive use of robbery-based felony murder and leaves any broader treatment of forcibly removed body material to the Legislature. Criminal practitioners should isolate the timing of force, severance, possession, and carrying away when bodily material is alleged as stolen property.