People v. Weiss
276 N.Y. 384 (1938)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a kidnapping conviction under a statute requiring a willful intent to act 'without authority of law,' the prosecution must prove the defendant had the specific intent to act without such authority. A defendant's good faith belief that they were acting with legal authority, even if mistaken, negates this essential element of the crime.
Facts:
- Ellis Parker, Jr., who was involved in the Lindbergh murder investigation, presented himself to appellants Schlossman and Weiss as a detective.
- Parker told Schlossman he was appointing him a 'special deputy to help him in the Lindbergh case' and gave him a badge that read 'Secret Service of the State of New Jersey.'
- Parker assured Weiss that their actions had 'proper authority' and that he would vouch for them if questioned by police.
- Acting under the belief that they possessed legal authority, Schlossman and Weiss seized and confined Paul H. Wendel, whom Parker suspected of murder.
- Schlossman and Weiss took Wendel to Schlossman’s home, where they fastened him to a stool, tied him with rope, and tortured him in an attempt to elicit a confession.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellants, Weiss and Schlossman, were prosecuted for kidnapping in a New York trial court.
- A jury found both appellants guilty of the crime of kidnapping.
- The appellants appealed their convictions to the intermediate appellate court, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment of conviction.
- The appellants were granted leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest 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 a defendant commit kidnapping if they seize and confine another person while honestly but mistakenly believing they have the legal authority to do so?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Brien, J.
No. A defendant does not commit kidnapping if they acted under a good faith belief in their legal authority, because the crime requires a willful intent to confine a person 'without authority of law.' The intent element of kidnapping applies not only to the act of confinement but also to the illegality of that act. If a defendant genuinely believes they are acting within the law, they cannot possess the requisite criminal intent to act 'without authority of law.' Therefore, defendants are entitled to present evidence of their belief to the jury, which must then decide as a question of fact whether this belief was held in good faith. The trial court erred by excluding such evidence and instructing the jury that the defendants' belief was irrelevant.
Dissenting - Crane, Ch. J.
Yes. A defendant's mistaken belief in their legal authority is not a defense to kidnapping. The statute's intent requirement applies only to the physical acts of seizing and confining, not to the legal status of those acts. The phrase 'without lawful authority' is an attendant circumstance of the crime, not part of the required mental state. Individuals are presumed to know the law, and a mistake of law does not excuse a criminal act. Allowing such a defense would create a dangerous precedent, permitting individuals to commit violent abductions and then claim they believed their actions were legally justified. Furthermore, given the extreme torture inflicted upon the victim, any error in excluding evidence of the defendants' belief should be considered harmless.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that kidnapping in New York is a specific intent crime, requiring the prosecution to prove the defendant's subjective awareness of their lack of legal authority. It distinguishes the mens rea for kidnapping from that of lesser offenses like false imprisonment, where a good faith belief is not a defense. The ruling elevates the importance of the defendant's state of mind, making it a central question of fact for the jury and creating a significant hurdle for prosecutors in cases where a defendant can plausibly claim they believed they were acting lawfully.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Weiss