## Facts

- Private individuals Harry Weiss and Martin Schlossman participated in seizing and confining Paul H. Wendel, a murder suspect, in New York.
- They acted with Ellis Parker, Jr., who represented that he had law-enforcement authority and provided what appeared to be official indicia of authority (including a badge and asserted deputy appointments).
- The prosecution charged defendants under New York Penal Law § 1250, which required a willful seizure or confinement “without authority of law.”
- Defendants contended they acted in good faith, believing they were authorized to assist a lawful arrest and detention.
- At trial, the court excluded testimony about Parker’s representations that allegedly caused defendants to believe they had authority.
- The trial court instructed the jury that even if defendants believed they had authority, that belief was “no defense.”
- Defendants were convicted of kidnapping; the intermediate appellate court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether kidnapping under New York Penal Law § 1250 required proof that defendants willfully intended to confine another “without authority of law.”
2. Whether a defendant’s good-faith belief that he was acting with legal authority is relevant to the statute’s required intent.
3. Whether excluding evidence of defendants’ claimed belief in authority, and instructing the jury that such belief was not a defense, was reversible error.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals reversed the kidnapping convictions and ordered a new trial.
- The court held that willful intent to act “without authority of law” was an essential element of kidnapping under § 1250.
- The court held that defendants’ belief or disbelief in the legality of their conduct was relevant to intent and should have been presented to the jury.
- The exclusion of evidence about Parker’s representations, together with the instruction that good-faith belief was “no defense,” improperly removed a material mens rea issue from the jury’s consideration.

## Legal Principles

- When a kidnapping statute requires willful confinement “without authority of law,” the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to act without such authority.
- A good-faith belief in legal authority to arrest or detain, even if mistaken, may negate the intent element embedded in “without authority of law.”
- State-of-mind evidence bearing on statutory intent is admissible when it tends to show absence of the required mens rea.
- Jury instructions that treat a defendant’s good-faith belief in authority as irrelevant may misstate the statute’s mental-state requirement and require reversal.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because kidnapping under § 1250 required proof of a willful intent to confine without legal authority, and defendants were entitled to present and have the jury consider evidence that they acted in good faith under an asserted law-enforcement authorization.


People v. Weiss, 276 N.Y. 384, 12 N.E.2d 514 (N.Y. 1938)