96 N.Y.2d 320 (2001)

The First Amendment does not protect child pornography, and a defendant’s claim of possessing it for scientific research does not create a constitutional right to a “scientific justification” defense not explicitly provided by statute.

Summary

Fraser, a social worker, was convicted of possessing a sexual performance by a child after a computer technician discovered child pornography on his computer. Fraser claimed he possessed the material for scientific research to develop a treatment program for child pornography offenders and sought to assert a “scientific justification” defense similar to that in Penal Law § 235.15(1) and a mistake of law defense. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the scientific justification defense applies only to obscenity prosecutions, and the mistake of law defense was inapplicable because the statute did not authorize his conduct. The court further clarified that digital computer images fall within the definition of “photographs” under the statute.

Facts

Fraser took his computer to a repair shop where a technician discovered files suggestive of child pornography. The technician copied the files, and upon viewing them with other employees, they found images of children engaged in sexual activity with adults. Fraser claimed he was a certified social worker with experience in treating child abuse victims and offenders. He stated he was invited to join a work group to develop a treatment program for child pornography offenders and that he compiled the prohibited material by downloading files from chat rooms for research purposes.

Procedural History

The People moved to preclude Fraser from asserting a scientific use affirmative defense. Fraser moved to assert the defense at trial. The Trial Judge precluded the affirmative defense and refused to instruct the jury regarding it or a mistake of law defense. Fraser was convicted of two counts of possessing a sexual performance by a child. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a defendant is constitutionally entitled to invoke a “scientific justification” defense for possessing child pornography for research purposes, even if the statute defining the offense doesn’t explicitly provide such a defense.
2. Whether the defendant was entitled to a mistake of law defense under Penal Law § 15.20(2)(a).
3. Whether visual images stored on a computer hard drive constitute “photographs” within the meaning of Penal Law § 263.00(4).

Holding

1. No, because child pornography is not protected by the First Amendment, and the state’s compelling interest in protecting children outweighs the potential infringement on scientific research.
2. No, because the defendant’s mistaken belief that his conduct was legal was not based on an official statement of the law that authorized his conduct.
3. Yes, because defining digital computer images as photographs falls within the plain meaning of the statute and aligns with the legislature’s intent to eradicate child pornography in all its forms.

Court’s Reasoning

The court relied heavily on New York v. Ferber, which established that child pornography is not protected by the First Amendment due to the state’s compelling interest in protecting children. The court emphasized that even material with serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value loses protection when it embodies child pornography. The court also cited Osborne v. Ohio, which upheld a state’s authority to prohibit the mere possession of child pornography. Addressing the mistake of law defense, the court noted that Penal Law § 15.20(2)(a) requires that the mistaken belief be founded on an official statement of the law that actually authorizes the conduct, not just a reasonable belief. The court found that no such official statement authorized Fraser’s possession of child pornography. Finally, the court reasoned that interpreting digital computer images as photographs aligns with the legislature’s broad intent to eradicate child pornography in all forms, as stated in People v. Keyes. The Court stated, “By enacting article 263, the New York Legislature intended to ‘employ broad measures to eradicate child pornography in all its forms’”.