*3 Judges MARIS and Circuit ROSENN, Before HUNTER, THE OF COURT OPINION Judge Circuit HUNTER, Berry consolidated Warren
1. In these and cases, judgments appeal from of conviction Guillermo robbery, ransom, for (1) extortion, V.I. (2) robbery Code (1978), Ann. tit. and 14, § in the degree, robbery third id. affirm We § conviction and reverse the convictions.
I 2. The unique. facts this case are The evidence, light government, viewed most favorable to as follows. On March Luis Raul 8, 1978, who had Morales, just quit job, walking having picked up home after paycheck. Berry, Defendant-appellant his last whom Morales had known since drove and offered childhood, Hearing longer Morales ride. no Morales was em- Berry give ployed, pound offered him credit for a $375 marijuana. marijuana was to Morales sell the Berry day. repay accepted After next Berry’s offer, drove him to where the mari- house, juana kept, gave marijuana and then him, dropped marijuana him off near town. Morales rolled the joints into about sold worth. he However, $400 spent promptly personal amount entire on items old debts. day, Berry co-defendant-appellant,
3. The next and his Brignoni, began get repay him to look for *4 eventually him and found at the Black & White debt, money Berry for bar.1 asked which Morales he be- told him and that he lieved Morales owed Morales him, According to Morales: did not have it. get
[Berry] him and if I told one to come with see could money. okay.” “Well,
I said my place I me over Then, asked him to take brother’s and I money pay him, you know, and him for the ask I would then my after that. pay back brother would “Okay.”
He said Morales when a barmaid informed actually in an him that apartment appellants near the bar, looking but went him. to the bar way Morales saw house, 4. On the to Morales’ brother’s coming a out of a him “Freston”2 man known to testimony (the un- The driver McDonald’s restaurant. Berry Brignoni) stopped the clear as to it was whether By got next and Morales out. car to the McDonald’s in his road on foot and was had crossed the Freston time, by unaccompanied crossed either defendant, car. Morales, “I spoke that Morales testified to Freston. the road any money me be- that he could lend him if he had asked Freston I I it to needed owed [defendants].” cause it, gave Berry he when loaned Morales $35 returned to the car. a bar Morales’ owned
5. trio then drove They the bar and Morales parked car next to brother. emerged Christian, He saw a friend,
from the car alone. him for standing him and asked called to bar, outside money him: told and Morales had no Christian loan. my for the go brother “Okay, and ask I into the bar will according money.” to Morales: Next, my I these explained brother owe I I the bar and went into money I and then when me some money, he could loan men some if get pay it I him back. back will given then he could have me
He said all he had that that hundred dollars. give
So, I the hundred dollars and went back outside to it to took pay and told him I would him rest of the Warren day, you know, night, “Okay.” or later that and he said the next got then the car and into told him they drop him off Black at the & White would bar. they the bar, drove turned off However, as toward in a then different Morales testified he told direction. defendants: someplace drop going else, get me [you] there I are
[I]f ride into town. “Freston’s” real Winston Isaac.' *5 name, and’ the name under which he testified at trial,
They they just going said that in that area to see a friend they give they out, and would ame ride back back I when come so stayed in the car them. with visiting
7. Instead stopped of the defendants friend, According the car at a beach near the Salt River. Brignoni Berry and Morales, “came out I of so car, walked out of car, too, and we walked towards the Berry beach.” Once at the told Morales to take all beach, go off his clothes and for a As swim. Morales removed his Berry Brignoni “[g]o get gun.” told
clothes, and Brignoni shotgun gave removed from the car trunk and Berry. gun it to The record does not reveal whether the pointed was at Morales. Morales walked into water and swimming. Berry went then called for Morales return, Berry money he did told and so. him he wanted the day 10:00 A.M. the next that if Morales did not bring it to him, Morales would be killed.
8. As walked back the car, Berry told not to with and that Morales come he them, would find his clothes in the middle of the road when he began walked home. met man As Morales his he walk, Subsequently, him loaned a raincoat to who cover himself. flagged an he down automobile driven home. police; contacted the as he later, Morales drove Sometime to the River discovered beach, two detectives Salt lying of the middle His clothes “in street.” wallet, his missing. $50, contained against A two count indictment was issued both alleged Brignoni. Berry and Count I that the defendants away, carried and detained confined, “to seized, aggravated him,” from violation of the extract Code Ann. V.I. tit. statute, 14, § unlawfully taking II accused the defendants Count from clothing and articles wallet, his $50, while dangerous weapon, in violation displaying a first de- *6 gree robbery (2). jury 1862 After a both statute, trial, id. § kidnapping, of defendants were convicted and of lesser robbery degree, of in the third 1864.3 included offense id. § They each to im- sentenced consecutive of life were terms years prisonment on the count4 and ten on the robbery count. appeal,
10. there was On contend both defendants kid- support either insufficient to evidence to the verdict napping cor- robbery; to or used that certain evidence given him Morales’ had roborate assertion that drugs drug attempting was debt, collect a to to sell, was unconstitutionally; seized and that even if evidence 404(b) legally, of rule it seized inadmissible under argues In addition, of Federal Rules Evidence. denying for motion erred in his that the district court of find all claims and have reviewed these severance. We regarding exception of one them with the meritless, support sufficiency evidence convictions. (1978) provides:
11. Code tit. 14, § Islands robbery ransom, extortion or Kidnapping 1052. for § entices, decoys, ab- confines, inveigles, Any seizes, person who any any away kidnaps carries individual conceals, or ducts, detain, holds or or or who intent hold means whatsoever ransom, or to commit extortion detains, for reward individual such entity any thing, any person or or valuable or to exact from away any kidnaps any or individual to com- person carries or who any act, guilty any person aids robbery, who or abets such is mit imprisoned and shall be for life. kidnapping for ransom appears only apply face, section itsOn any kidnappings, but also situation in to traditional against transported, person, will, no matter Section Conviction mandatory ants commission 1052 of displayed, sentence robbery the offense. See V.I. Code used, Code, of life in the third or threatened to under which defendants imprisonment. degree does not use a See id. 1052. Ann. tit. dangerous § require convicted, § weapon the defend provides in the long, no matter for how what the distance, restrained, during robbery, of a an or an the commission extortion, attempt money. to exact our first task to deter- Thus, transported mine whether defendants at time either *7 against restrained Morales his will. they Until the defendants told that Morales were
going to friend, visit a but instead drove towards Salt reasonably interpreted the could not River, evidence be suggest they kidnapping. prin that had a committed cipal prosecution the witness was the “victim,” testimony, in Morales. Nowhere his is the however, there slightest inference that either had en gaged any in prohibits. of the acts which section 1052 In testimony directly contrary. Morales’ stead, to the First, allege not he does that the used or defendants threatened any compel go force to use him to with them. Second, places he that at both asked states where he the driver to stop that he borrow so could McDonald’s —the unaccompanied by bar —he left brother’s the car either began defendant. Third, when the defendants to drive [you] going ward Salt “If Morales told them: River, are someplace drop get me I else, there and a into ride town.” request likely by per is not one that This to be made a being “kidnapped.” Finally, son that he is who believes spoke people Morales testified that he to three he after and the defendants left the Black & White bar: “Freston”, despite and Morales’ brother. Christian, the fact Yet, that sitting the defendants were inside car when Morales spoke despite to each men, of these the fact that Mo out of speak rales was defendants’ at earshot, least while ing to “Freston” and his brother, Morales did not tell being kidnapped. of them that he was We find it incon kidnap that victim, ceivable blessed with opportunity parties, including uninvolved alone with third to be his own fact immediately them of the inform not would brother, “kidnapping.”5 of his
III meaning statutory lan 14. Under the literal “inveigle,” “entice,” guage, defendants did however, they “decoy”6 told them to remain with when going but to visit instead friend, him that on beach, Moreover, beach. while drove though, do believe, We “confine[d].” some sense bearing point. inquiry Instead, our ends aggravated mind that statute carries mandatory imprisonment, de of life we must sentence legislature Virgin Islands termine whether intended every language act comes within literal *8 kidnapping. If to constitute find the statute be deemed we legislature’s this not we then that must intent, Berry’s Brignoni’s and decide whether acts were of suffi being gravity kidnapping, warrant treated as cient to than a lesser or different crime. rather as 5 statement, government response on relies “Freston’s” made in to a examination, during approached him, question cross that when Morales he guys “scared,” appeared going “told those me that to kill him.” statement, standing alone, not that do believe was sufficient to en We beyond jury a reasonable that to believe doubt defendants had able prohibited acts section 1052. note first committed We with that directly only inconsistent not statement Morales’ rec “Freston’s” “Freston”, of his conversation but also with ollection sion Moreover, with Morales’ ver up 'leading to series events to the of the entire drive Salt River. jury testimony disregarded found, if the Morales’ even Morales, of his on “Freston’s” recollection conversation with that that based being kidnapped, he was still that could not Morales believed a we hold place. actually principle It took is an elemental under the others of which are and all aware Islands statute we that a kid merely supposed napping he is occur because victim that does not thinks Instead, “kidnappers” kidnapped. intentionally being must com legitimately being lead the to believe that he victim acts which mit government’s Here, plainly in the favor viewed reveals the evidence seized. River, they turned towards that, the defendants Salt com least until at any suggestion is barren of The record acts. that the de no such mitted trickery compel use or threatened to force or used to either fendants accompany them. to mislead, hoodwink, 6 delude, beguile. as to “Inveigle” is defined Webster’s Dictionary, (1961 ed.). at 1188 “Entice” is New International Third attract, allure, tempt. “Decoy” Id. at 757. is defined as to as defined entrap. entice, Id. 588. allure,
IV begin by invoking principle of statu- 15. a settled We century tory interpretation more than announced —first ago Kirby, (7 Wall.) 482, in United U.S. States v. applica- (1868) particularly 486-87 we believe is —which regard making kidnapping a crime: ble statutes terms All should receive a sensible construction. General laws application injustice, should so in not to be limited their lead oppression, consequence. always, therefore, or an absurd It be will presumed legislature exceptions language, intended its which would avoid results this character. The reason of the law prevail in such cases should over letter. its jurisprudence The traditional rule in American any asportation away carrying i.e., the vic- — —of no
tim, matter in how short distance or was suffi- duration, kidnapping. to establish the crime of A cient See Note, Kidnapping, Rationale of the Law of Col. L. Rev. juris- This in force rule, which is still in some succinctly
dictions
the United States,7 was most
stated
People
v.
2d
Chessman,
166, 192,
Cal.
[7]
[8]
[9]
See,
The
See, e.g., People
v.
N.E.2d
N.E.2d
[106]
549
P.2d 442
[501]
(1978
(1978);
e.g.,
Chessman
Daniels,
Ariz.
S.W.2d
(Ky. 1977).
Levshakoff
[688]
[126]
Cuevas v.
(1978); People
230,
[71]
(1969).
[627]
(1975).
rule
Cal.
v.
623 danger principal enforcement 17. of overzealons The persons committed kidnapping who have of statutes is robbery in- or assault —which crime as such substantive herently temporary of the the detention seizure involve by greater prescribed penalties far victim —will suffer the overly by kidnapping problem The caused the statutes. kidnapping interpretation first the literal of laws (1946). 455 U.S. States, raised in Chatwin v. United purpose Supreme of the noted that There, the Court nearly language Kidnapping contains which Act,10 Federal to com- in statute, to that Islands identical epidemic kidnapping,” an of id. at in which 464, bat “true bands,” motive,” usual “[r]ansom [as] “criminal with among wealthy great care victims “from selected meticulously work[ing] study,” “fully after out in of the Id. at 462-63. The advance” the seizure. details long recognized apparently reach Court but Act, statutory language of concluded that “the broadness permit out con- tear the of their does not us to words concept we careless to sanction a text. . . Were . of disregard the back- crime we of setting potential ground the Act the boundaries of infinity.” (emphasis liability would be Id. at 464 lost added). inequity permitting kidnapping inherent reality
prosecutions of inwho committed lesser or those temporary different seizure or detention offenses, figured played part, prominently in an incidental the deci severely scope limit of numerous state courts to sions People In statutes.11 their state v. Daniels, Rptr. (1969), 2d 897, Cal. Cal. P.2d 225 [11] 10 18 U.S.C. See note 5 terstate confined, inveigled, decoyed, means whatsoever punishes anyone commerce supra. § 408a, who *10 and held for “any person knowingly transports amended kidnapped, abducted, ransom or who shall have been U.S.C. reward § or aids in or carried otherwise.” transporting unlawfully seized, away That statute in in
624 approval the Supreme Com cited Court California provide: Penal Code,12 to 212.1 of the Model ments § kidnapping, an alterna scope of t is desirable restrict [I] significance whose chief treatment of behavior tive cumulative scope overlapping robbery rape, of this because the broad given Examples injustice of abusive rise to serious oifense has .... prosecution Among is the kidnapping the worst are common. imprisonment use means to secure a death sentence or life robbery rape, in a behavior that amounts in substance for jurisdiction penal subject where these are not to such offenses ties .... Rptr.
71 2d at Cal. 80 Cal. at 459 P.2d 237 909, at 1138, (emphasis added). People Similarly, Levy,
19.
v.
15 N.Y.2d
159,
(1965),
N.Y.S.2d
ogy, central each are of these four factors (1) duration are: of the detention factors or Those asportation (2) asportation; the detention whether oc during separate (3) aof the commission offense; curred asportation the detention which occurred in whether (4) separate aspor- offense; whether herent significant danger tation detention created a posed by separate independent victim of that offense. legislative history hold in the We absence engaged contrary, in kid- whether defendant has napping Islands defined 1052 of the section light four considera- Code must be determined these *12 Applying to the facts of this tions. these considerations Brignoni said kid- case, and cannot be to have napped Luis Morales.13 defendants robbed
22. While the Salt River Beach, (an they convicted), may offense for which may attempted commit have assaulted and have to him,14 confined while extortion.15 To extent that Morales was during on the River confinement Salt that occurred Beach, 13 also hold governs We that the four factor test the construction of the lesser § imprisonment. Virgin 14, offense included of false Islands Code tit. (1978), provides: imprisonment False and § authority Whoever imprisons without person lawful or confines another Territory against will, within this inveigles kidnaps his or confines or or person, another with imprisoned intent to cause him to confined be or in against Territory will, this his toor cause him to be sent out of this Territory against will; willfully knowingly sells, his and whoever and or any transfers, any term, in any manner for the services or labor of other person unlawfully seized, taken, inveigled kidnapped who has been or from Territory any state, territory country, guilty kidnap- other or is of ping imprisoned and be shall for not one less than and more not than 20 years. own child. apply any This action not in parent shall case when a abducts his language virtually That by employed statute uses identical breadth to that Thus, application statute. the risk of overzealous of this by intending prosecutors statute multiple saddle the defendant with penalties penalties substantially greater magnitude of those than which crimes, great equally attach to other substantive as that which exists regard with to 1052. § 291, Virgin 14, quoted text, requires tit. in the Islands Code that § gesture” “threatening jury might accused a at a make defendant. A find Berry’s “[g]o get gun,” that instruction to compliance Brignoni’s threatening instruction with constituted a gesture, jury gun pointed that the found even if was never at Morales. statute, Virgin 14, extortion Islands Islands Code tit. § obtaining property (1964) per extortion as “the of defines from another son, consent, wrongful fear,” use induced of force his with years. punishment provides apparently Appellants of more than five for a did not extortion, an act of because there is commit no evidence that Morales, getting consent, from -with his succeeded after They could, however, or fear” at beach. use of “force have their prosecuted been attempted under extortion id. 381. for § Moreover, of other offenses. commission those subjected
degree of confinement to which greater commission inherent in the no than that robbery, a defendant of To convicted those crimes. be person or property “from of another take the must against by means presence and his will, immediate force Similarly, Ann. tit. § .” V.I. Code fear person requires “a threat- that a make the crime assault showing gesture intention ening in itself an immediate battery.” ability coupled Id. 291.16 commit a § an Necessarily implicit violent crimes is some in both of these robbery, During asportation. it limited confinement or the robber to be confined while is common the victim money, distance so as to or to be moved short takes his public In it like is vir- from view. manner, be secluded during tually be an the victim will assault, inevitable *13 period for a a or moved short distance. confined for brief on the confinement while do not believe Morales’ We any incident to the than that which is beach different robbery the test under assault; of result, crimes support con- confinement not will earlier, described kidnapping. for viction only in There remain two other situations which
23. required against transported or to move Morales was place forced took when Morales was free will. The first during occurred The second to take a ocean. swim “decoy “inveigle or he was [d]” [ed]” car ride when accompanying to the Salt River beach. defendants into plainly Regarding did not the defendants swim, the forced beyond any prohibited section 1052. It is commit acts containing respect dispute a man statute that with statutory language datory imprisonment term, life narrowly the defendants did construed. Thus, must be Battery of another is defined with intent as the use of injure him.” “any unlawful violence Id. § upon person grasp they him, not did not clutch “seize” because Morales, prisoner. Interna- him Third New him, take Webster’s they Dictionary (1961 ed.). “confine” tional Nor did keep him say, him him, bounds, which is hold within They quarters. did not cramped at 476. narrow Id. they “carry away,”17 did him because “abduct” him or certainly accompany Finally, not him into water. “decoy” “inveigle” him, did not “entice” him, him, ride to the Salt River beach, “conceal” him.18As to the inveiglement, abundantly it clear that act stand- ing support First, the conviction. is insufficient to alone, quite apparently Al- brief. the duration the ride was though length of the the record disclose the drive, does government “particularly it not of concedes that was long Appellee at is in duration.” Brief 22. This sharp in which case, contrast the traditional period. the victim there is held for a substantial Second, created is no indication in the record that the brief ride injury appreciable In risk of to Morales. while sum, hardly do not we acts defendants were admirable, legisla- that it believe was the intent Islands kidnapping. therefore ture to deem acts We cannot these kidnapping conviction. sustain
Conclusion robbery judgment of conviction for in the third 24. The The As lead, ¡hoodwink, beguile. is defined as “to Dictionary, trap. tract, ceal” is defined as “to purpose or sion pellants Id. at 469. There previously *14 phrases an by Id. underage ruse; did not tempt. “abduct” and telling at 3. 588. Each noted in note it is evident that woman] Id. at 757. (1961 employ carry Morales to nothing ed.). prevent of these off “carry away” appear Id. at 1188. “Entice” is a ruse to wrongfully.” (a “Decoy” supra, enter person) by disclosure in the phrases in the water was directing get “inveigle” is Webster’s record him into the water. defined carried the connotation of force” recognition of,” i.e., to be is defined to indicate that as to or “to lead to hide him. Third New defined as to synonymous. to allure, go as to for a away Finally, entice, International delude, appellants’ allure, swim, “Abduct” [a persua “hide.” “con child mis ap en at degree judgments for will be affirmed. of conviction The kidnapping bewill reversed. Judge, Concurring Circuit
ROSENN, agree I majority convic- that the defendants’ kidnapping sepa- tions must but reversed, be write rately express my reversal as to reason views required. unnecessary I believe that on record it is this up asportation to set criteria the detention or requirement statute must be measured, because the critical element case is this whether specified defendants intended to commit offense in the I statute. am convinced that no such intent existed and would I, therefore, reverse the conviction for kidnapping. key
The facts of this bizarre melodrama commence unsuccessfully sought monetary after the victim Morales, pay Berry. aid from off his friends to debt his Until voluntarily accompanied time, defendants they attempted help in their him locate automobile pay testimony off sufficient funds to the debt. Morales’ happened best describes what next: Well, give brother], I after him the this other [from [Brignoni] they going they man said were into back town and will they pick up from, okay take me back to where me so I and I said got But, going into the car and went with them. when we were town, they like, going back towards I saw that turn left to the road they going around Barren’s Castle. When were into road I told they going someplace else, drop them that if are me there and I get a ride into town.
They they just going said that to see a friend in that area they give would me a ride back when out, come back Iso stayed in the car with them. visiting instead of purported defendants, their friend, *15 was Morales beach. At beach,
drove Morales procured, gun to swim strip, ordered to and after a was swimming awhile, for out into the ocean. After by the de- and informed summoned back to the beach was day re- next that he had until 10:00 A.M. fendants then pay The defendants he killed. the debt or else would be find them could and told him that he took Morales’ clothes eventually back to town. Morales the middle of the road containing did recover clothes but wallet his his $50.00 missing. rob- and
The
defendants were indicted
charge alleged
degree.
bery in the first
The
intentionally
unlawfully seized,
that
and
the defendants
away
him
and detained
confined and carried
money.
testimony plainly
extract
reveals
[sic]1
Berry’s car uncoerced. The
how-
statute,
Morales entered
decoy any
indi-
also makes it an offense to entice
ever,
money. Although the
vidual
for ransom or to exact
may
brought
defendants
have
themselves
the statu-
within
tory catalogue covering “[a]ny person
inveigles,
who . . .
decoys”
accom-
when
deceived Morales into
entices,
highway
panying
River
them from the main
to the Salt
trickery. It
indictment did not mention
such
beach,
only
Berry
Brignoni
had “seize
con-
recited
[d],
away.”
difference
fine
Because this
[d]
carr[ied]
testimony,
point,
at this
seems to be
Morales’
substantial,
charged
prove
not
element of the offense
could
still
Stirone United
States,
the indictment. See
v.
U.S.
men
beach, however,
the three
arrived at
When
indeed
confine
did
seize and
Morales.
Berry’s
removing
clothes,
Morales,
direction,
As
The statute uses
between the
larity in
complain.
meaning
indictment and the statute is harmless
the term “exact”
between the words.
money.
See
Furthermore,
V.I.C.
§
in
the defendants do
view of the
The variance
simi
*16
“
”
Berry
get
gun.’ Brignoni
told
'Go
the
go
did so.
then ordered Morales to
out into the
water and to
At
from
swim.
least
the time that Morales
implies perceived
started to undress —an act that
threat
jury
—Morales
the
could have
seized and con-
was,
found,
recognized
fined.
have
Courts
that
kid-
the essence of
napping
compulsion
requisite
is the
element
and that the
may
obey
force
compelled
occur where
victim
the
feels
injury
orders
he
because
fears harm or
from the defendant.
People Dagampat,
App.
See
v.
167 Cal.
2d
492, —,
P.2d 581, 583
Accord: State
P.2d
Belkin,
v.
(Ariz. App. 1976); People
v.
consequences mandatory of the life sentence under the kid- napping by avoiding meaning statute the literal of the gloss importing asportation statute and on the or deten- requirement adopted jurisdictions tion that have at- tempted scope limit the broad of their stat- Although utes. effort commends itself under unique I may facts of this am concerned case, because it instability uncertainty important introduce in an area jurisprudence. of criminal
I believe, however, convictions part must founder lack because of intent on the proscribed by to commit an defendants offense the kid- napping charged statute. The offense in the indictment is away confined and carried defendants seized, They money order to extract from him. [sic] possess specific therefore had to intent to exact they arguably from confined at the time seized him on the beach: prohibited purpose particular
Where act must be done with a design, necessary ransom, such as obtain it is to show that the specific defendant did have the intent to detain the victim for that purpose detaining. he when committed the act of *17 Wharton’s Criminal Law and 372 at 738 Procedure, §
The record reveals that
the defendant drove Morales
money
around in
pay
an effort to have him obtain
off his
Berry.
debt to
When Morales had exhausted his
efforts
raising
agreed
sufficient funds, the defendants
to take him
they
diversionary
back
journey
to town. When
took the
they
to the beach near Salt
knew Morales had no
River,
money.
point,
witnessing
At
this
after
Morales’ futile
effort to raise
from
it
$375.00
is reasonable to infer
friends,
gave
up
expectation
receiving
the defendants
payment
night.
full
by
the debt that
It is evident that
ordering
strip
Morales to
and
into
swim
the de-
sea,
intending
fendants were not
to hold or confine Morales
money,
to exact
impress upon
but rather to
him the seri-
pay
ous need to
the balance of his
If
debt.
a crime occurred
point, may
at this
it
have been an assault or a
im-
false
prisonment,2
kidnapping
but it
robbery.
was not
[2]
A conviction for false
denied,
ment. In the instant
have been more
lawful
vicinity
freedom
prisonment plus asportation ment,
beyond
at
However,
F.Supp.
750. In State v.
Supreme
restraint
There is no the conclusion that evidence to diversionary from the moment made their the defendants journey completed to the his the time Morales beach, attempting then to rob or exact swim, defendants were money unexpected upon completing from him. Indeed, dip, ocean that he had until 10:00 Morales was informed morning money. up A.M. the next to come with the Such any in- from statement the defendants is inconsistent with expected ference that from to exact the beach. point, cloth-
At this the defendants did take Morales’ ing, undisputed it later found his wallet was missing. The defendants told Morales he would find his they evidently on them clothes the road into took town, monetary to further value. humiliate not for their Morales, missing appears on record have been an wallet afterthought and unconnected with of the defendants In rec- main of the events at the beach. thrust fact, *18 ord not reveal that either of the defendants knew does presence took the about the until $50.00 clothes.
I, therefore, conclude that the activities the defend- decoying ants Morales to the beach and their behavior kidnapping there did not constitute under I the statute. agree majority, although not for the same reasons, that the cannot convictions be sustained. Giv- ing the Government the benefit all inferences as we must appeal, supra, on agree judg- I also Glasser, robbery ment of degree conviction for in the third should be affirmed.
tween the If statute in the so, A.L.R.3d a conviction for false two could have occurred in this case. crimes Islands recognized imprisonment employ in Roberts could similar as a lesser included offense of See language, cases arguably collected at the distinction be- be adopted. Annot.,