## Facts

- Leroy Brown and Lisa Lindo, former intimate partners, jointly arranged to obtain a car: Brown paid about $6,000 as a down payment, but title was placed in Lindo’s name (with her father as co-signer).
- For several months, the parties shared use of the car without incident.
- Disputes arose after Brown fell behind on agreed payments; Lindo once took the car from near Brown’s residence without notice.
- On October 18, 1998, Lindo drove Brown from Brooklyn to the Bronx; an argument about the car escalated.
- Brown moved into the driver’s seat and drove while Lindo got into the back seat to prevent him from taking the car.
- Brown, angry and frustrated, stated in substance that if he could not have the car then no one could, and intentionally drove the car into a light pole, causing significant damage.
- Brown testified he believed the car was not a gift and that an informal agreement gave him an ongoing right to use the car despite title being in Lindo’s name.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant charged with unauthorized use of a vehicle may assert a good-faith claim of right (an honest belief in a possessory or ownership right) to negate the required mens rea.
2. Whether a defendant may be convicted of criminal mischief for intentionally damaging a vehicle when he honestly believed he had a right to share use of the vehicle with the titled owner.

## Decision

- The court held that a good-faith claim of right defense is available to negate the mens rea for unauthorized use of a vehicle.
- Applying that rule, the court found the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Brown knew he lacked a right to use the car; Brown was found not guilty of attempted unauthorized use of a vehicle.
- The court held that an honest belief in shared use does not authorize intentional destruction of the vehicle and does not bar criminal mischief liability where another person has a proprietary interest.
- The court found Brown intentionally damaged property in which Lindo (and her father) had a proprietary interest; Brown was found guilty of attempted criminal mischief in the fourth degree.

## Legal Principles

- A good-faith claim of right can negate the culpable mental state for certain property offenses by defeating proof that the defendant knowingly acted without a right or permission.
- Unauthorized use of a vehicle is sufficiently analogous to theft-type offenses that an honest, even if mistaken, belief in a right to use the vehicle can defeat the “knowing” element.
- For criminal mischief, “property of another” includes property in which any person other than the defendant holds a proprietary interest, even if the defendant also claims an interest.
- A belief in shared ownership or shared use does not create a right to damage or destroy the property; possessory or use claims are distinct from any claimed right to impair the property’s value.

## Conclusion

The court acquitted Brown of attempted unauthorized use because his honest belief in a right to use the car prevented proof that he knowingly acted without authorization, but convicted him of attempted criminal mischief because intentionally crashing the car damaged property in which others held proprietary interests, regardless of his asserted shared-use arrangement.


People v. Brown, 711 N.Y.S.2d 707 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 2000)