Defendant maintains that the trial court committed reversible error by not instructing the jury regarding the effect of his mistake upon his criminal liability. At trial, defendant presented evidence that he was invited to participate in a work group of volunteers, formed by the Oneida County Department of Mental Health with the approval of the Oneida County District Attorney's Office, to assist the County in developing a program for assessment and possible treatment of people convicted of Internet pornography. In connection with his involvement in the work group, defendant claims he unilaterally decided to collect child pornography from the Internet as part of a scientific research project he was conducting. Defendant claims further that prior to obtaining the prohibited material, he made a diligent effort to learn the applicable law. Defendant contends that Article 263 authorized him to possess images on his computer hard drive of children engaged in sexual activity, if he did not display the images to an audience, because technically the images were not photographs or other visual representations exhibited before an audience.
Performance also means any other visual representation exhibited before an audience.
Defendant does not show that he relied on an official publication in construing the statute incorrectly. Defendant's narrow reading of the statue does not comport with reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Opinion by Judge Smith. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.