People v. Heath, 86 N.Y.2d 723 (1995)
Criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under New York Penal Law § 265.02(4) is a valid predicate violent felony offense sufficient to support a charge of unlawfully wearing a body vest under Penal Law § 270.20(1).
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the reinstatement of an indictment count charging the defendant with unlawfully wearing a body vest. The court held that criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02(4)) qualifies as a predicate violent felony offense under Penal Law § 270.20(1), which prohibits wearing a body vest while committing a violent felony. The court reasoned that the elements of the two crimes are distinct, and that the Legislature could rationally conclude that wearing a body vest emboldens individuals to commit further crimes, including possessing contraband firearms.
Facts
The defendant, Heath, was charged with multiple crimes, including unlawfully wearing a body vest (Penal Law § 270.20(1)) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02(4)). The indictment for unlawfully wearing a body vest was based on the allegation that Heath committed the crime of possessing a loaded firearm while wearing the vest.
Procedural History
The Appellate Division reinstated the indictment count charging Heath with unlawfully wearing a body vest. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under Penal Law § 265.02(4) constitutes a valid predicate violent felony offense sufficient to support a charge of unlawfully wearing a body vest under Penal Law § 270.20(1).
Holding
Yes, because there is no legal or policy-based reason to exclude third-degree criminal possession of a weapon as a valid predicate violent felony offense. The elements of the two crimes are different, and the legislature could rationally believe that someone wearing a body vest would be emboldened to commit further crimes.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that Penal Law § 270.20(1) applies when an individual commits a violent felony offense defined in Penal Law § 70.02 while possessing a firearm and wearing a body vest in furtherance of the crime. Criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree falls under § 70.02 and thus satisfies the literal language of § 270.20(1). The court distinguished this case from People v. Brown, 67 N.Y.2d 555 (1986), where the crimes were found to have overlapping elements. In Heath, the court emphasized that the weapon-possession elements of the two charged crimes are different: Penal Law § 270.20 requires the possession of a “firearm,” while Penal Law § 265.02(4) requires proof that the defendant possessed a “loaded firearm.”
The court stated, “[N]either crime contained] an element which [wa]s not also an element of the other crime.” Here, in contrast, there are several differences in the elements of the two charged crimes.”
The court further reasoned that the Legislature could have rationally concluded that a person wearing a bullet-resistant body vest would be emboldened to commit further crimes, even crimes involving the possession of contraband. Therefore, there is nothing anomalous about charging a defendant with unlawfully wearing a body vest “in furtherance of’ the additional crime of possessing a loaded firearm outside the home.