People v. Gudz
18 A.D.3d 11, 793 N.Y.S.2d 556, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3630 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New York Penal Law § 15.20(1)(a), a mistake of fact defense only requires a defendant's subjective, honest belief that negates the culpable mental state (mens rea) for the offense. The defense does not require the defendant's mistaken belief to be objectively reasonable.
Facts:
- The defendant met an individual named 'Judith' on the internet.
- The defendant and Judith arranged for the defendant to simulate an 'abduction' of Judith as part of a sexual role-playing fantasy.
- In preparation, the defendant scouted a location in the Town of Livingston, observed Judith on her bicycle, and claimed she had executed a 'consent form'.
- In July 2002, the defendant drove his car across the center line of a road in Livingston and struck a female bicyclist who was stopped.
- The defendant, believing the victim was Judith, began to pull the struggling woman toward his vehicle.
- As bystanders moved to intervene, the victim freed herself.
- After an exchange of words with the bystanders, the defendant fled the scene.
- The defendant was subsequently arrested.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged with attempted kidnapping in the second degree.
- After the defendant testified before a grand jury, the grand jury returned an indictment.
- The defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment based on alleged defects in the grand jury proceeding was denied by the County Court (trial court).
- Following a jury trial in County Court, the defendant was convicted of attempted kidnapping in the second degree.
- The defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender to 15 years in prison.
- The defendant (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does New York's 'mistake of fact' defense under Penal Law § 15.20(1)(a) require that a defendant's mistaken belief be objectively reasonable in addition to being subjectively and honestly held?
Opinions:
Majority - Cardona, P.J.
No. The mistake of fact defense under Penal Law § 15.20(1)(a) does not impose an objective reasonableness standard; it requires only that the defendant's subjective belief negate the culpable mental state for the crime. The trial court erred by instructing the jury that the defendant's mistaken belief had to be both honestly held and objectively reasonable. The plain text of the statute is silent on a reasonableness requirement, and its legislative history, influenced by the Model Penal Code, supports a purely subjective test. This contrasts with New York's justification defense, where the legislature explicitly included a 'reasonably believe' standard, indicating the omission in the mistake of fact statute was intentional. Because the defendant's mental state was the central issue at trial, it is impossible to know whether the jury convicted him based on the improper objective standard, so the error was not harmless and a new trial is required.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies a critical ambiguity in New York criminal law by firmly establishing that the mistake of fact defense is a purely subjective inquiry. By rejecting an objective reasonableness component, the court aligns New York's interpretation with the Model Penal Code and prevents juries from convicting defendants who hold a genuine, albeit unusual or 'unreasonable,' belief that negates criminal intent. This holding provides a clear standard for future cases and distinguishes the mistake of fact defense from other defenses like justification, which explicitly incorporate an objective standard. It reinforces the principle that criminal liability should hinge on the defendant's actual state of mind.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Gudz