With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (“[T]he specific intent to commit robbery is the intent to steal, i.e., to deprive an owner of property either permanently or temporarily.”); § 812.13(1), Fla. Stat. (2008). Appellant relies on Thomas v. State, 526 So.2d 183, 184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), which recognized that a well-founded belief in one’s right to the allegedly stolen property constitutes a complete defense to a charge of theft, Rodriguez v. State, 396 So.2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), and cases cited, and because the demonstration of a theft is indispensable to a robbery conviction, Arnold v. State, 83 So.2d 105, 108 (Fla. 1955), to a robbery case as well. Accord, Alfaro v. State, 837 So.2d 429, 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (error to deny claim-of-right instruction); Owens v. State, 866 So.2d 129, 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>). Owens further explained that [a]s to how the

A: holding that trial court was obliged to instruct jury that a wellfounded belief in ones right to possess property constitutes a complete defense to a charge of theft
B: recognizing a criminal defendants right to present a complete defense
C: holding that the constitutional guarantee of a right to trial by jury includes the right to a complete and correct charge of the law so that each issue of fact raised by the evidence will be submitted to the jury on proper instructions
D: holding that insanity is a complete defense to the criminal charge
A.