James v. State
| Citation | 521 S.E.2d 465,239 Ga. App. 541 |
| Decision Date | 06 August 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. A99A1667.,A99A1667. |
| Parties | JAMES v. The STATE. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Ninfo & Ledbetter, Paul M. Ledbetter, Jr., Covington, for appellant.
Tommy K. Floyd, District Attorney, for appellee.
Robert James appeals from his convictions of armed robbery and kidnapping with bodily injury. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting each conviction. The challenges are without merit, and we therefore affirm the convictions.
The evidence shows that James and another man entered a convenience store. As they were paying for a soft drink and a pack of cigarettes, James' accomplice shocked the cashier on his face with a "stun gun." The victim lost consciousness, and his face was burned and scarred. The victim regained consciousness to find James and his accomplice dragging him into the store's washroom. While being dragged, the victim saw a third man in a mask at the cash register. In the washroom, the two men forced the victim under the sink, bound him with tape and threatened to shoot him. James and his two accomplices stole approximately $2,400 from the store and the cashier and then fled.
1. James argues the stun gun injury to the victim's face occurred prior to the kidnapping and thus there is no evidence to support his conviction of kidnapping with bodily injury. The argument is unpersuasive.
"A person commits the offense of kidnapping when he abducts or steals away any person without lawful authority or warrant and holds such person against his will." OCGA § 16-5-40(a). The crime of kidnapping with bodily injury under OCGA § 16-5-40(b) requires only that an injury, no matter how slight, occur during the kidnapping incident. Reynolds v. State, 234 Ga.App. 884, 885(1)(a), 508 S.E.2d 674 (1998); Lamunyon v. State, 218 Ga.App. 782, 784-785(4), 463 S.E.2d 365 (1995).
Thus, contrary to James' argument, whether the bodily injury occurs at the beginning of the kidnapping incident or after the victim has been abducted is immaterial for purposes of proving the elements of the crime. For instance, we have upheld a kidnapping with bodily injury conviction when the defendant first hurt the victim by twisting her arm and then forced her to move from one room to another in her home. See Culver v. State, 230 Ga.App. 224, 232(10), 496 S.E.2d 292 (1998). Likewise, we have found that the defendant's choking of the victim before forcing her to move from her living room to her bedroom constituted the bodily injury necessary to establish the crime of kidnapping with bodily injury. Ferguson v. State, 211 Ga.App. 218, 221(3), 438 S.E.2d 682 (1993).
In the instant case, the attack of the victim with the stun gun was the first step of the kidnapping; it immobilized the victim and allowed James and his accomplice to drag the victim into the washroom and to bind him with tape. The burning of the victim's face with the stun gun at the outset of the kidnapping constituted the bodily harm necessary to support the conviction of kidnapping with bodily injury. See Green v. State, 193 Ga. App. 894, 896(1), 389 S.E.2d 358 (1989).
2. James contends the evidence is insufficient to support his armed robbery conviction because there is no proof the stun gun was an offensive weapon. The contention is without merit.
The Supreme...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woodard v. State
...594 (2011).6 White v. State , 332 Ga. App. 495, 498 (2) (c), 773 S.E.2d 448 (2015) (punctuation omitted).7 James v. State , 239 Ga. App. 541, 541 (1), 521 S.E.2d 465 (1999) ; accord Greene v. State , 295 Ga. App. 803, 808 (5), 673 S.E.2d 292 (2009).8 Sears v. State , 270 Ga. 834, 841 (4), 5......
-
Hewitt v. State
...inflicted at the same moment as the initial abduction." Sears v. State, 270 Ga. 834, 841(4), 514 S.E.2d 426 (1999). James v. State, 239 Ga.App. 541, 521 S.E.2d 465 (1999), cited by Hewitt confirms that "whether the bodily injury occurs at the beginning of the kidnapping incident or after th......
- Harris v. State, A99A1583.
-
Greene v. State, A09A0322.
...the victim has been abducted is immaterial for purposes of proving the elements of the crime." (Citations omitted; emphasis in original.) James v. State.21 Here, the strangulation of the victim was, in essence, the first step in the kidnapping. It caused her to black out briefly, thereby im......
-
Nonlethal self-defense, (almost entirely) nonlethal weapons, and the rights to keep and bear arms and defend life.
...conclude that a stun gun qualified under such a definition), Harwell v. State, 512 S.E.2d 892, 895 (Ga. 1999) (same), James v. State, 521 S.E.2d 465,466 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999) (same), State v. Lemeunier, 986 So. 2d 130, 135 (La. Ct. App. 2008) (same, as to pepper spray; this likely supersedes ......