Thomas v. State
320 Ga. App. 101
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Jeremiah Frank Thomas was convicted of kidnapping after a jury trial.
- The victim, a six-year-old, was in her aunt's fenced backyard when Thomas, who did not know her, spoke to her and offered money.
- Thomas opened the gate, grabbed the victim, lifted her, and carried her out of the backyard into an alley, despite the victim's resistance.
- The victim was carried past three houses before being put down; she ran to her aunt's front yard and alerted others.
- Police arrested Thomas; he was charged with and convicted of kidnapping, with a related argument that the movement was incidental to an underlying offense (simple battery).
- The statutory analysis centers on asportation: whether movement was slight but not incidental to another offense, under OCGA § 16-5-40 (b) and the 2009 amendments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient asportation to convict? | Thomas argues movement was mere incident to another offense. | State contends slight movement can suffice if not incidental. | Yes; movement not incidental; sufficient asportation. |
| Did the movement of the victim constitute kidnapping rather than a mere incidental act to another offense? | Thomas asserts movement occurred during simple battery and was incidental. | State maintains movement was not merely incidental and concealed/isolation of victim. | Movement not incidental; supported asportation under statute. |
| Could the jury infer criminal intent despite mental illness evidence? | Thomas contends mental illness negates intent. | Jury could rely on conduct and psychiatric testimony to infer intent. | Yes; jury authorized to find requisite intent. |
| Did the 2009 amendment clarifying slight movement affect this case? | Not explicitly argued; case applied amended statute. | Amendment supports when movement not incidental. | Amendment applicable; movement sufficient under Garza framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garza v. State, 284 Ga. 696 (Ga. 2008) (four-factor test for asportation sufficiency)
- Bryant v. State, 304 Ga. App. 755 (Ga. App. 2010) (asportation analysis and movement not incidental to offense)
- Bray v. State, 294 Ga. App. 562 (Ga. App. 2008) (jury may believe or disbelieve witnesses; conflicts resolved by jury)
- Fuss v. State, 271 Ga. 319 (Ga. 1999) (criminal intent may be inferred from conduct and circumstances)
- State v. Abernathy, 289 Ga. 603 (Ga. 2011) (insanity defense; mental illness not automatically defense)