Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Rushing, R., 627 Pa. 59

In July 2008 Randal Rushing killed three people and bound three other household members in the Collier home; victims included Samantha, Cynthia, and Matthew Collier.
Rushing restrained victims (handcuffs, ties, belts, cable), threatened them at gunpoint, sexually assaulted Samantha, removed phones/keys, and checked on them repeatedly; victims remained bound until police arrived.
Rushing was convicted after a bench trial of multiple counts including first‑, second‑, and third‑degree murder, kidnapping, robbery, and indecent assault; trial court found confinement met kidnapping’s “place of isolation” element.
The Superior Court reversed the kidnapping convictions (and the related second‑degree murder counts), holding confinement incidental to other crimes and not in a “place of isolation.”
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocatur limited to whether the victims were confined in a “place of isolation,” and ultimately reinstated the kidnapping and related second‑degree murder convictions.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Rushing's Argument	Held
Whether confinement "in a place of isolation" under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2901(a) can occur in the victim's own home	A place of isolation is functional not geographic; victims in their own home can be isolated if circumstances make discovery or rescue unlikely	Statute must be strictly construed; confinement incidental to core crimes (murder, robbery, sexual assault) should not be elevated to kidnapping when victims are at home and rescue was reasonably possible	A place of isolation is not geographic; victims in their home were effectively separated from society’s protections and thus confined in a place of isolation
Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove confinement in a place of isolation	The facts (bindings, threats, removal of phones/keys, repeated checks, inability to summon help for 1–2 hours) show effective isolation and substantial period	The confinement was incidental to revenge/robbery and not sufficiently isolating given expected return of another household member and residence location	Viewing evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth, confinement met statutory requirement; sufficiency sustained

Commonwealth v. Markman, 916 A.2d 586 (Pa. 2007) (binding/gagging and isolation from society supported place‑of‑isolation finding)
Commonwealth v. Housman, 986 A.2d 822 (Pa. 2009) (victim bound/gagged in trailer living room constituted place of isolation despite public setting)
Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 687 A.2d 836 (Pa. Super. 1996) (elderly victims held at knifepoint inside home for five hours were effectively isolated)
Commonwealth v. Mease, 516 A.2d 24 (Pa. Super. 1986) (basement confinement and prolonged violence constituted place of isolation)
Commonwealth v. Hook, 512 A.2d 718 (Pa. Super. 1986) (confinement incidental to rape where premises were openly accessible did not constitute place of isolation)