§ 130.10 Sex offenses; limitation; defenses.
1. In any prosecution under this article in which the victim's lack of
consent is based solely upon his or her incapacity to consent because he
or she was mentally disabled, mentally incapacitated or
physically helpless, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant, at
the time he or she engaged in the conduct constituting the offense, did
not know of the facts or conditions responsible for such incapacity to
consent.
2. Conduct performed for a valid medical or mental health care purpose
shall not constitute a violation of any section of this article in which
incapacity to consent is based on the circumstances set forth in para-
graph (h) of subdivision three of section 130.05 of this article.
3. In any prosecution for the crime of rape in the third degree as
defined in section 130.25, {sodomy} CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACT in the third
degree as defined in section 130.40, aggravated sexual abuse in the
fourth degree as defined in section 130.65-a, or sexual abuse in the
third degree as defined in section 130.55 in which incapacity to consent
is based on the circumstances set forth in paragraph (h) of subdivision
three of section 130.05 of this article it shall be an affirmative
defense that the client or patient consented to such conduct charged
after having been expressly advised by the health care or mental health
care provider that such conduct was not performed for a valid medical
purpose.
(As amended by L.2003, c.264, eff. 11/1/03.)
4. In any prosecution under this article in which the victim's lack of
consent is based solely on his or her incapacity to consent because he
or she was less than seventeen years old, mentally disabled, a client or
patient and the actor is a health care provider, detained or otherwise
in custody of law enforcement under the circumstances described in para-
graph (j) of subdivision three of section 130.05 of this article, or
committed to the care and custody or supervision of the state department
of corrections and community supervision or a hospital and the actor is
an employee, it shall be a defense that the defendant was married to the
victim as defined in subdivision four of section 130.00 of this article.
(As amended by L.2018 c.55 eff. 06/11/18)