Ferguson v. State
| Decision Date | 10 November 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 72102,72102 |
| Citation | 533 So.2d 763,13 Fla. L. Weekly 669 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 669 Charles W. FERGUSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Charles Ferguson was convicted of robbery and kidnapping. The facts taken from the district court's opinion are as follows:
The defendant robbed an Arby's restaurant. After he was given the money, the defendant, at gunpoint, forced the manager and three employees outside of the store and put them into a restroom located in the rear. The defendant told the victims to stay inside. After thirty seconds the manager peeked out. The defendant yelled, "get back into the bathroom". The victims obeyed for another thirty seconds, when they looked out and observed the defendant riding off on a bicycle.
On appeal, Ferguson contended that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for kidnapping. The district court disagreed and affirmed the kidnapping conviction, relying on our decision in Faison v. State, 426 So.2d 963 (Fla.1983). However, the court recognized that its holding was in direct conflict with Chaney.
In Faison, we adopted a three-prong test to determine whether the confinement or movement of victims during the commission of another crime is sufficient to support a kidnapping charge. For a kidnapping conviction to stand, the resulting movement or confinement:
Faison, 426 So.2d at 965 (quoting State v. Buggs, 219 Kan. 203, 216, 547 P.2d 720, 731 (1976)).
The Chaney case involved facts which were substantially similar to those in the instant case. Two men entered a nursery and robbed an employee at gunpoint. The robbers then put the employee into a bathroom which they barricaded with fifty-pound bags. After about sixty seconds, the employee broke out of the bathroom and saw the license plate number on the robbers' car. The two men were later arrested as the result of the employee's having immediately notified the police of the car tag number. The district court, relying on its earlier decision in Friend v. State, 385 So.2d 696 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), and utilizing the standard enunciated in Faison, held that these facts were insufficient to support a kidnapping charge. The court observed that the victim's confinement was of minimal duration. The court also concluded that there was no lessening of the risk of detection because the victim had gotten free and had seen the perpetrators' car tag number.
We find this analysis inconsistent with the principle of Faison. The duration of the confinement is not an integral part of the test even though it may bear on whether the confinement was slight or inconsequential. Moreover, the determination of whether the confinement makes the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chavez v. State
...analysis, the jury could properly conclude that these facts were sufficient to support a kidnapping conviction. See also Ferguson v. State, 533 So.2d 763, 764 (Fla.1988) (recognizing that evidence that the victim was confined to make another crime substantially easier to commit is sufficien......
-
State v. Robinson
...People v. Rayford, 9 Cal.4th 1, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 317, 884 P.2d 1369, 1382–84 (1994) (Mosk, J., dissenting); Ferguson v. State, 533 So.2d 763, 765 (Fla.1988) (Kogan, J., dissenting); Faison, 426 So.2d at 967–69 (Boyd, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Tindall v. State, 45 So.3d 7......
-
Banks v. Commissioner of Correction
...and restraining robbery victims after taking their property is to facilitate the perpetrator's escape. See, e.g., Ferguson v. State , 533 So. 2d 763, 764 (Fla. 1988) (forced confinement of restaurant employees in restroom after robbery was "intended to make it more difficult for the victims......
-
Taylor v. State
...a victim occurred to make another crime substantially easier of commission is sufficient to support a kidnapping charge. Ferguson v. State, 533 So.2d 763, 764 (Fla.1988). A conviction for felony murder, based upon kidnapping as the underlying felony, is not invalidated simply because the mu......