In a case of first impression, a California Court of Appeal held that growing hair still attached to a person's head is part of the human body, not personal property, and therefore cannot be the subject of robbery. The decision in People v. Barraza arose from a fatal attack in which Alberto Jorge Barraza cut off part of Nikko G.'s hair with a knife and then stabbed him in the leg, severing an artery.
Nikko, who was proud of his long Native American hair and planned to sell it to a wig company, fought back as Barraza tried to cut off his hair bun. Barraza punched him and stabbed him. A jury convicted Barraza of first-degree felony murder with robbery as the underlying felony, as well as assault with a deadly weapon. On appeal, Barraza argued the evidence was insufficient to establish robbery.
The court agreed, reasoning that robbery requires the taking of personal property distinct from the person. Once hair is severed, it can be bought, sold, or given away, but while attached it is anatomically part of the body. The court noted that forcibly cutting attached hair fits within offenses protecting bodily integrity, such as battery or mayhem, rather than property crimes. The prosecution had argued there was little sense in distinguishing between hair voluntarily removed and hair forcibly cut, but the court's analysis focused on the legal definition of robbery and the physical status of the hair at the time of the taking.