mistake of fact defense in New York

2016Furthermore, in Georgia, the mistake of fact defense has been held to apply to burglary when it “ ‘negates the existence of the mental state required to establish a material element of the crime’ ” (Stillwell v Georgia, 329 Ga App 108, 110, 764 SE2d 419, 422 [2014] [emphasis added]).

2016Furthermore, in Georgia, the mistake of fact defense has been held to apply to burglary when it “ ‘negates the existence of the mental state required to establish a material element of the crime’ ” (Stillwell v Georgia, 329 Ga App 108, 110, 764 SE2d 419, 422 [2014] [emphasis added]).

2016In Price v Georgia (289 Ga 459, 459, 712 SE2d 828, 829 [2011]), the Georgia Supreme Court held that a criminal conviction must be reversed due to a failure to charge the jury with the mistake of fact defense in a burglary trial.

2016In Price v Georgia (289 Ga 459, 459, 712 SE2d 828, 829 [2011]), the Georgia Supreme Court held that a criminal conviction must be reversed due to a failure to charge the jury with the mistake of fact defense in a burglary trial.

2011Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury with a specific charge on the mistake of fact defense since the court’s instructions on the elements of burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the third and fourth degrees adequately covered the defense theory (see People v Williams, 81 NY2d 303, 316-317 [1993]; People v Kowalewski, 39 AD3d 770, 771 [2007]; People v Grimaldi, 6 AD3d 722, 722-723 [2004]; People v Storms, 2 AD3d 757, 757 [2003]; People v Banks, 248 AD2d 183, 183 [1998]).

2007Nor did the court err in refusing to instruct the jury with a specific charge on the mistake of fact defense since the court’s instructions on the elements of manslaughter and weapons possession adequately covered the defense theory (People v Williams, 81 NY2d 303, 316-317 [1993]; People v Grimaldi, 6 AD3d 722 [2004]; People v Storms, 2 AD3d 757 [2003]; People v Banks, 248 AD2d 183 [1998]).

2014This claim is unreviewable on direct appeal because it involves matters not reflected in, or fully explained by, the record (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Love, 57 NY2d 998 [1982]).

2014This claim is unreviewable on direct appeal because it involves matters not reflected in, or fully explained by, the record (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Love, 57 NY2d 998 [1982]).

2011Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury with a specific charge on the mistake of fact defense since the court’s instructions on the elements of burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the third and fourth degrees adequately covered the defense theory (see People v Williams, 81 NY2d 303, 316-317 [1993]; People v Kowalewski, 39 AD3d 770, 771 [2007]; People v Grimaldi, 6 AD3d 722, 722-723 [2004]; People v Storms, 2 AD3d 757, 757 [2003]; People v Banks, 248 AD2d 183, 183 [1998]).

2007Nor did the court err in refusing to instruct the jury with a specific charge on the mistake of fact defense since the court’s instructions on the elements of manslaughter and weapons possession adequately covered the defense theory (People v Williams, 81 NY2d 303, 316-317 [1993]; People v Grimaldi, 6 AD3d 722 [2004]; People v Storms, 2 AD3d 757 [2003]; People v Banks, 248 AD2d 183 [1998]).

2011Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury with a specific charge on the mistake of fact defense since the court’s instructions on the elements of burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the third and fourth degrees adequately covered the defense theory (see People v Williams, 81 NY2d 303, 316-317 [1993]; People v Kowalewski, 39 AD3d 770, 771 [2007]; People v Grimaldi, 6 AD3d 722, 722-723 [2004]; People v Storms, 2 AD3d 757, 757 [2003]; People v Banks, 248 AD2d 183, 183 [1998]).

2007Nor did the court err in refusing to instruct the jury with a specific charge on the mistake of fact defense since the court’s instructions on the elements of manslaughter and weapons possession adequately covered the defense theory (People v Williams, 81 NY2d 303, 316-317 [1993]; People v Grimaldi, 6 AD3d 722 [2004]; People v Storms, 2 AD3d 757 [2003]; People v Banks, 248 AD2d 183 [1998]).

2011Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury with a specific charge on the mistake of fact defense since the court’s instructions on the elements of burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the third and fourth degrees adequately covered the defense theory (see People v Williams, 81 NY2d 303, 316-317 [1993]; People v Kowalewski, 39 AD3d 770, 771 [2007]; People v Grimaldi, 6 AD3d 722, 722-723 [2004]; People v Storms, 2 AD3d 757, 757 [2003]; People v Banks, 248 AD2d 183, 183 [1998]).

2007Nor did the court err in refusing to instruct the jury with a specific charge on the mistake of fact defense since the court’s instructions on the elements of manslaughter and weapons possession adequately covered the defense theory (People v Williams, 81 NY2d 303, 316-317 [1993]; People v Grimaldi, 6 AD3d 722 [2004]; People v Storms, 2 AD3d 757 [2003]; People v Banks, 248 AD2d 183 [1998]).

2020We reject defendant's contention that the validity of the initial stop should be analyzed under the mistake of fact doctrine ( see generally Guthrie , 25 NY3d at 134 ; People v Smith , 1 AD3d 965, 965 [4th Dept 2003]) inasmuch as the Trooper did not effectuate the stop based on a mistake of fact with respect to whether the required inspection documents were displayed on the [*2]vehicle's windshield.

2012The mistake of fact defense, like the identical claim of right defense, will not apply when the crime involves taking money by force to satisfy a preexisting debt (see Reid, 69 NY2d at 476-477 ), and no jury instruction concerning that mistake of fact defense is permissible in a robbery case, “regardless of the nature of the property taken” (People v Green, 5 NY3d 538, 545 [2005]).

2012The mistake of fact defense, like the identical claim of right defense, will not apply when the crime involves taking money by force to satisfy a preexisting debt (see Reid, 69 NY2d at 476-477 ), and no jury instruction concerning that mistake of fact defense is permissible in a robbery case, “regardless of the nature of the property taken” (People v Green, 5 NY3d 538, 545 [2005]).

2011Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury with a specific charge on the mistake of fact defense since the court’s instructions on the elements of burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the third and fourth degrees adequately covered the defense theory (see People v Williams, 81 NY2d 303, 316-317 [1993]; People v Kowalewski, 39 AD3d 770, 771 [2007]; People v Grimaldi, 6 AD3d 722, 722-723 [2004]; People v Storms, 2 AD3d 757, 757 [2003]; People v Banks, 248 AD2d 183, 183 [1998]).

2011The defendant’s contention that he was entitled to a charge on “claim of right” with respect to the grand larceny counts is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Ace, 51 AD3d 1379, 1380 [2008]; People v Fuller, 252 AD2d 353 [1998]).

2010We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in reading back to the jury portions of the victim’s testimony that had been stricken or with respect to which the court had sustained an objection (see People v Porter, 256 AD2d 363 , 364 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 976 [1999]; see also People v Roman, 149 AD2d 305, 307 [1989]; see generally People v McNab, 144 Misc 2d 612, 616-617 [1989]).

2010We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in reading back to the jury portions of the victim’s testimony that had been stricken or with respect to which the court had sustained an objection (see People v Porter, 256 AD2d 363 , 364 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 976 [1999]; see also People v Roman, 149 AD2d 305, 307 [1989]; see generally People v McNab, 144 Misc 2d 612, 616-617 [1989]).

2009We reject the appellants’ contention that under the mistake of fact doctrine, they should be permitted to retain the funds wrongfully seized (see Banque Worms v BankAmerica Intl., 77 NY2d 362, 366 [1991]; Bank of New York v Spiro, 267 AD2d 339 [1999]).

2007We agree with the defendant, however, that concurrent sentences, rather than consecutive sentences, were mandated under the circumstances of this case (see Penal Law § 70.25 [2]; People v Hamilton, 4 NY3d 654, 658 [2005]; People v Day, 73 NY2d 208, 212 [1989]; People v Ivory, 27 AD3d 664 [2006]; People v Reyes, 239 AD2d 524, 525 [1997]; People v Banks, 208 AD2d 759, 760 [1994]).

2007We agree with the defendant, however, that concurrent sentences, rather than consecutive sentences, were mandated under the circumstances of this case (see Penal Law § 70.25 [2]; People v Hamilton, 4 NY3d 654, 658 [2005]; People v Day, 73 NY2d 208, 212 [1989]; People v Ivory, 27 AD3d 664 [2006]; People v Reyes, 239 AD2d 524, 525 [1997]; People v Banks, 208 AD2d 759, 760 [1994]).

2007We agree with the defendant, however, that concurrent sentences, rather than consecutive sentences, were mandated under the circumstances of this case (see Penal Law § 70.25 [2]; People v Hamilton, 4 NY3d 654, 658 [2005]; People v Day, 73 NY2d 208, 212 [1989]; People v Ivory, 27 AD3d 664 [2006]; People v Reyes, 239 AD2d 524, 525 [1997]; People v Banks, 208 AD2d 759, 760 [1994]).

2007We agree with the defendant, however, that concurrent sentences, rather than consecutive sentences, were mandated under the circumstances of this case (see Penal Law § 70.25 [2]; People v Hamilton, 4 NY3d 654, 658 [2005]; People v Day, 73 NY2d 208, 212 [1989]; People v Ivory, 27 AD3d 664 [2006]; People v Reyes, 239 AD2d 524, 525 [1997]; People v Banks, 208 AD2d 759, 760 [1994]).

2005Finally, since Penal Law § 15.20 (1) (a) was put into effect, other New York courts confronted with the issue of whether a purported mistake of fact must be objectively reasonable have concluded, in direct reliance upon the MPC, that the Penal Law imposes no such requirement (see People v Grinage, 269 AD2d 780, 780 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 853 [2000]; People v Rypinski, 157 AD2d 260, 262-263 [1990]). 3 Turning to whether County Court’s error can be deemed harmless, we note that defendant’s mens rea was the predominant issue at trial and was the subject of considerable proof on both sides.

2005Moreover, it has been recognized that, at the time that the mistake of fact defense was first codified in New York during the wholesale revision of the Penal Law in 1965 (see L 1965, ch 1030, § 15.20), the Legislature was influenced by the promulgation of the Model Penal Code (hereinafter MPC) and intended that analogous provisions of the new Penal Law would be construed consistent therewith (see People v Marrero, 69 NY2d 382, 387-388 [1987]; Donnino, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law art 15, at 74; see also People v Sanchez, 98 NY2d 373 , 382 n 1 [2002]).

2005Moreover, it has been recognized that, at the time that the mistake of fact defense was first codified in New York during the wholesale revision of the Penal Law in 1965 (see L 1965, ch 1030, § 15.20), the Legislature was influenced by the promulgation of the Model Penal Code (hereinafter MPC) and intended that analogous provisions of the new Penal Law would be construed consistent therewith (see People v Marrero, 69 NY2d 382, 387-388 [1987]; Donnino, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law art 15, at 74; see also People v Sanchez, 98 NY2d 373 , 382 n 1 [2002]).