88 N.Y.2d 852 (1996)
To establish criminal possession of a rifle or shotgun under Penal Law § 265.01(4), the prosecution must prove that the weapon was operable, mirroring the requirement for handguns.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the defendant’s conviction for criminal possession of a weapon, holding that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence that the rifles and shotguns in the defendant’s possession were operable. The Court extended the established rule for handguns, requiring proof of operability for criminal possession, to rifles and shotguns. The court reasoned that there is no functional difference between handguns and rifles/shotguns concerning their potential for harm and regulation, and the additional element of a prior felony conviction in the statute doesn’t negate the need for operability.
Facts
The defendant was convicted on five counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, specifically for possessing rifles and shotguns, after having previously been convicted of a felony or serious offense. The prosecution did not present any evidence that the weapons were operable.
Procedural History
The County Court convicted the defendant. The defendant appealed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the County Court’s order and dismissed the informations.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution must prove that a rifle or shotgun is operable to secure a conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree under Penal Law § 265.01(4).
Holding
Yes, because to establish a violation of Penal Law § 265.01(4), the People must establish that the defendant possessed an operable rifle or shotgun after having previously been convicted of a felony.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that while the statute is silent on operability, New York courts have consistently required proof of operability to establish criminal possession of a handgun. The court found no principled reason to treat rifles and shotguns differently from handguns, stating, “Requiring proof of operability for the two offenses is reasonable because there is no functional difference between a handgun and a rifle or shotgun, and no principled reason to treat them differently in this respect for purposes of the criminal possession statutes. Both are capable of inflicting serious injury or death only if operable and both are appropriately regulated under those circumstances.” The court distinguished this case from People v. Shaffer, noting that Shaffer addressed whether a revolver was a “deadly weapon,” requiring proof that it was both operable and loaded with live ammunition, whereas the operability of the weapon itself was not at issue in Shaffer. The court stated,