Lewis v. State
50 So. 3d 86
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2010Background
- Appellant convicted of attempted robbery with a firearm, aggravated assault with a firearm, armed kidnapping with a firearm, and resisting arrest with violence.
- Issue on appeal concerns whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal on armed kidnapping.
- Evidence shows confinement was slight, incidental to the robbery, and not a separate kidnapping.
- Appellant moved McReynolds to a bathroom, handcuffed her, and guarded the front door while seeking safe access.
- Confinement ended with the robbery when the appellant fled; victims were not restrained at escape; kidnapping not proven under Faison.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the kidnapped-confinement was sufficient for separate kidnapping | State argues confinement was independent and significant | Appellant argues confinement was incidental to the robbery | Reversed; confinement not meeting Faison test |
Key Cases Cited
- Faison v. State, 426 So.2d 963 (Fla.1983) (three-part test for kidnapping separate from underlying felony)
- Buggs v. State, 547 P.2d 720 (Kan. 1976) (source of the three-part test cited by Florida courts)
- Wilcher v. State, 647 So.2d 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (confined movement within robbery not kidnapping per se)
- Walker v. State, 604 So.2d 475 (Fla.1992) (limited movement not significant; insufficient for kidnapping)
- Russell v. State, 874 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (confinement likely to accompany underlying crime cannot support kidnapping)
- Berry v. State, 668 So.2d 967 (Fla.1996) (untying victims affects whether confinement is incidental)