People v. Stephens

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
34 Misc. 3d 43, 937 NYS2d 822 (2011)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A criminal ordinance designed to protect public welfare may impose strict liability, meaning no culpable mental state is required for a conviction. The affirmative defense of entrapment by estoppel is only available when a defendant's conduct is in fact authorized by an official statement of law, not merely when it is based on an administrative error or a reasonable but mistaken belief.

Facts:

Nassau County enacted an ordinance, Local Law No. 6, requiring individuals to obtain a license to operate a home improvement business.
The stated purpose of the ordinance was to protect homeowners from abuses by contractors.
A defendant operated a home improvement business within Nassau County.
The defendant did not possess the required county license for his business.
The Village of Roslyn issued the defendant a construction permit for a project.
The village issued this permit based on what was later determined to be inaccurate licensing information.

Procedural Posture:

The defendant was charged in the District Court of Nassau County with operating a home improvement business without a license.
At trial, defense counsel requested a jury instruction requiring the prosecution to prove a culpable mental state.
Defense counsel also requested a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of entrapment by estoppel.
The District Court denied both of the defendant's requested jury instructions.
Following the trial, the jury found the defendant guilty.
The defendant appealed the judgment of conviction to this court, the Appellate Term.

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 a county ordinance requiring a license for home improvement businesses impose strict liability, and does a village's erroneous issuance of a construction permit constitute an 'official statement of the law' authorizing unlicensed work for the purpose of an entrapment by estoppel defense?

Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

Yes as to the first part of the issue, No as to the second. The ordinance imposes strict liability, and the erroneously issued permit does not establish an entrapment by estoppel defense. The court found that a criminal ordinance can impose strict liability without a culpable mental state if there is a reasonable relationship between the law's purpose and the public's safety, health, or welfare. Here, the ordinance's explicit purpose is to protect homeowners from fraud and shoddy work, which is a valid public welfare concern. Therefore, the court refused to 'rewrite the plain words of the statute' by implying a mental state requirement. Regarding the entrapment by estoppel defense under Penal Law § 15.20 (2), the court reasoned that the defense requires an 'official statement of the law' that 'must in fact authorize the conduct in question.' The Village of Roslyn's erroneous issuance of a construction permit does not constitute an official statement authorizing the defendant to operate a home improvement business without the separate, requisite county license.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the validity of strict liability for public welfare offenses, particularly local regulations aimed at consumer protection. It affirms that courts will not infer a mens rea requirement where a legislative body has omitted one for a regulatory crime with a clear public safety purpose. The ruling also narrowly construes the entrapment by estoppel defense, establishing a high bar by requiring a direct and explicit official authorization of the specific prohibited conduct. This prevents defendants from leveraging unrelated administrative errors as a defense against prosecution for violating clear statutory duties.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: People v. Stephens (2011)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature