State v. Arrington Because G.S. § 14-208.6(1m)explicitly requires that the state show the defendant was not the parent of the minor kidnapping victim in addition to the fact that the defendant was convicted of one of the listed offenses, the statute effectively mandates that the trial court look beyond the offense of conviction.
State v. James Although it was defendant’s cousin who brandished the gun, defendant was not “merely present” for the kidnapping and robbery: Both men approached the victims’ car as defendant’s cousin forced a group of college students into the car at gunpoint; while police were chasing the car, defendant yelled at the driver to keep driving; defendant pushed one of the students to the floor of the backseat until his cousin told him to stop; and when the car eventually stopped, defendant fled from the police and took the purse of one of the students with him. The evidence supports a reasonable conclusion that defendant acted in concert with his cousin.
We find no error in defendant’s conviction of kidnapping and armed robbery. His claim of ineffective assistance is dismissed without prejudice.
Defendant contends there was no armed robbery of victim Jefferson because she dropped her purse when she got into the car and therefore did not have anything to turn over when defendant’s cousin ordered the students to give up their belongings. We disagree.
Ms. Jefferson dropped her purse in the car only after she was forced into the backseat at gunpoint. Defendant’s cousin ordered Ms. Jefferson to find the items they wanted, and she handed over the belongings of victims Herberg and Gallman.
State v. Stokes Since the victim – a convenience store clerk – did not move when defendant ordered him to go to the back of the store, and since the victim walked only a few feet and then refused to go farther when defendant ordered him to get into defendant’s car, the evidence failed to show the removal necessary to support a charge of kidnapping.
State v. Boyd Where there was no evidence that defendant “removed” the kidnapping victim, it was plain error for the trial court to instruct the jury that it could find defendant guilty if he confined, restrained “or removed the victim from one place to another.”
State v. Bell There was a conflict as to whether or not defendant consented at all to the search of his room, but there was no conflict as to whether defendant’s consent was voluntary. The trial court concluded, “The defendant gave Sheriff Jones and Sergeant Weaver valid oral consent to search his room.” In order for the search to have been “valid,” it must have been given voluntarily. Given the lack of any dispute regarding voluntariness, we can infer that the trial court found the consent to be voluntary from its conclusion that defendant gave “valid oral consent.”
State v. Boyd According to the victim’s own testimony, the entirety of her encounter with defendant occurred within the confines of her living room. There was evidence that defendant confined and restrained the victim, but there was no evidence that he “removed” her. The trial court should not have given the jury the alternative instruction that defendant could be convicted of kidnapping if he “removed” the victim “from one place to another.”
State v. Bonilla. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-07-0152, 15 pp.) (Wanda G. Bryant, J.) Appealed from Harnett County Superior Court. (R. Allen Baddour Jr., J.) N.C. App. Click here for the full text of the opinion. Holding: Where defendant beat, bound, and sexually assaulted the kidnap victim, the jury could find that defendant intended to terrorize [...]
U.S. v. Wilson. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-01-0817, 37 pp.) (Agee, J.) No. 06-4180, Aug. 11, 2010; USDC at Greenbelt, Md. (Messitte, J.) 4th Cir. Holding: The 4th Circuit affirms defendant Lorenzo Wilson’s convictions for conspiracy to kidnap, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(c) and § 2, his sentence of life imprisonment for that offense, [...]
U.S. v. Lighty. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-01-0816, 83 pp.) (Hamilton, J.) No. 06-6, Aug. 11, 2010; USDC at Greenbelt, Md. (Messitte, J.) 4th Cir. Holding: Although the actions of federal prosecutors – including closing argument statements about the desires of the victim’s family – at two codefendants’ joint trial on kidnapping and murder charges, unnecessarily [...]