Friday, October 2, 2026
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Cutting Hair Can’t Support Robbery-Based Felony Murder
Opinion Reverses Conviction of Man Accused of Fatal Stabbing During Struggle After Suspect Began Hacking Off Victim’s Waist-Length ‘Prized-Possession’ Locks
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has upended the felony-murder conviction of a defendant who was accused of fatally stabbing an acquaintance in the leg, severing an artery, during a struggle that ensued after the victim awoke to the suspect trying to saw off his waist-length hair with a knife, declaring that taking the decedent’s locks by force does not amount to a robbery.
At issue is the definition found at Penal Code §211, which provides:
“Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.”
Retired Justice Richard D. Huffman, sitting by assignment, authored Wednesday’s opinion, declaring:
“This appeal presents a question of first impression—whether growing human hair, still attached to the victim’s body, constitutes ‘personal property’ for purposes of robbery….We conclude that growing human hair that is still attached to a person’s head is part of the human body and not personal property. Accordingly, removing it by force does not meet the legal definition of robbery.”
Huffman added:
“The Legislature has chosen to limit application of first degree felony murder to certain enumerated felonies, including robbery but not including assault with a deadly weapon. We merely decide that the crime committed by the defendant here was the latter and not the former.”
Suspicions Arose
The question arose after Alberto Barraza and some of his friends began suspecting that an acquaintance of the group, Nikko Guardado, had stolen from them. According to Wednesday’s opinion, Guardado, “a member of an Indian tribe,” “took great pride” in his “long hair that went down to his waist” and had expressed plans to sell the hair to a cancer company for use in making wigs.
On March 26, 2022, Guardado fell asleep in a friend’s car as it was headed to Barraza’s apartment. When they arrived, Barraza opened the car door, grabbed Guardado by the hair, and began hacking it off with a knife.
Guardado woke up and tried to fight off Barraza, who responded by punching the victim and stabbing him in the leg, severing the popliteal artery. After his arrest, Barraza wrote an apology letter to the decedent’s family, characterizing the death as an “accident” and saying that he only wanted to “humiliate” Guardado.
A jury found him guilty of first-degree felony murder and assault with a deadly weapon in January 2025. At a March 2025 sentencing hearing, San Diego Superior Court Judge Evan P. Kirvin sentenced him to 25 years to life in prison on the murder charge and stayed the punishment on the remaining count.
Qualifies as Chattel
Huffman recognized that “[h]uman hair, once severed from the head, qualifies as a good or chattel which can be sold, bought, or given away” but said that “[t]he question is whether human hair that is still growing and attached to a person’s head constitutes ‘personal property’ for purposes of robbery.” Noting that “[o]ur independent research has revealed no state or federal case addressing this issue,” he looked to the Penal Code for guidance and opined:
“Robbery requires ‘personal property,’ which necessarily implies ‘property’ such as a purse, necklace or a ring, meaning it cannot be part of the person. Attached hair is not a good or chattel; rather, it is anatomically part of a person’s body until it is severed. If a defendant forcibly cuts off a person’s hair or takes part of the person’s scalp in the process, this conduct fits within offenses protecting bodily integrity, such as battery (§ 242) or mayhem (§203).”
He continued:
“Thus, severing attached hair fits within offenses protecting bodily integrity rather than proprietary interests and supports the proposition that attached hair should be legally viewed as part of the person. Additionally, section 211 speaks of taking property ‘from [the] person.’ This language presumes the property is distinct from the person. Attached hair, however, is part of the person’s body. Thus, while there is no California authority stating body parts such as hair cannot be personal property, section 211 establishes that robbery is a possession-based crime against the person which requires personal property.”
Distinction Drawn
Lawyers with the Attorney General’s Office argued against drawing a distinction between attached and cut hair, asserting that it would create an unjust result to allow a felony-murder conviction for a killing accomplished during the robbery of already severed hair but not in the case where it was forcibly removed. Huffman acknowledged the issue but responded:
“To the extent this produces an arbitrary result, the Legislature could remediate the issue by adding a statute declaring that hair (or, more broadly, bodily material) severed from a person in the course of the same act by which it is taken is deemed personal property in the possession of that person in the same manner as if it had been severed at some previous time.”
Adding that “[c]ourts do not enact laws,” he commented:
“Without such legislation, we cannot extend the personal property element of section 211 to reach hair that has not yet been severed from the person at the time force is applied. Unless and until the Legislature enacts such legislation, courts are confined to applying section 211 as written.”
The case is People v. Barraza, 2026 S.O.S. 3125.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company