In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, the Court of Appeals determined “a sentence imposed for ‘simple’ knowing, unlawful possession of a loaded weapon (i.e., without any intent to use) was properly run consecutively to the sentence for another crime committed with the same weapon. [The defendants in these cases] completed the crime of possession independently of their commission of the later crimes, and therefore consecutive sentencing was permissible.” The court explained:
The mens rea for any crime “‘can be formed, and need only exist, at the very moment the person engages in prohibited conduct or acts to cause the prohibited result, and not at any earlier time'” … . The mens rea for “simple” possession is knowing unlawful possession of a loaded firearm. So long as a defendant knowingly unlawfully possesses a loaded firearm before forming the intent to cause a crime with that weapon, the possessory crime has already been completed, and consecutive sentencing is permissible. People v Brown… 199, 200, 201, CtApp 11-14-13