McCoy v. State

• Decision Date: 17 May 1988
• Docket Number: Nos. 243,250,1987,1987 and 288,s. 243
• Parties: Mark A. McCOY, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. Larry NAVE, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. Richard M. IRWIN, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. . Submitted:
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Delaware

Page 1215

542 A.2d 1215

Mark A. McCOY, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.

Larry NAVE, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.

Richard M. IRWIN, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.

Nos. 243, 1987, 250, 1987 and 288, 1987.

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Submitted: May 17, 1988.

Decided: May 25, 1988.

Superior Court, New Castle County.

AFFIRMED.

Before CHRISTIE, Chief Justice, and HORSEY and WALSH, Justices.

ORDER

This 25th day of May, 1988, the Court, after considering the parties' briefs and the record, concludes that:

(1) The appellants/defendants, Mark A. McCoy, Larry Nave, and Richard M. Irwin, were convicted by a jury of escape after conviction, two counts of conspiracy in the second degree, kidnapping in the second degree, and felony theft. Each defendant was sentenced to 49 years' imprisonment. Each defendant appealed his convictions and contends that the Superior Court erred in not instructing the jury as to unlawful imprisonment as a lesser included offense of kidnapping in the second degree. The Court has consolidated these appeals for purposes of this order.

(2) On December 1, 1986, four inmates (three of whom are the defendants in this case) escaped from the Delaware Correctional Center. The four separated after leaving the prison grounds with one inmate going South while the three defendants headed North. On December 2, 1986, the defendants abducted the victim at a mini-market where she had stopped on her way home from work. One of the three defendants drove the victim's car through various places in Pennsylvania and eventually back to Delaware. The victim was released several miles from where she had been picked up at a motel near the Pennsylvania line. The defendants then left with the victim's car. They were apprehended approximately one month later in Arizona and returned to Delaware for trial.

(3) At trial, defendant Nave testified that there had been no kidnapping because the victim had voluntarily agreed to give the defendants a ride to Route 202. After the close of evidence, counsel for the defendants requested that the trial judge instruct the jury on unlawful imprisonment in the first and second degree as lesser included offenses of kidnapping in the second degree. The trial judge refused the defendants' request and in so doing he indicated that no evidence had been presented which would have provided a rational basis for a jury verdict convicting the defendants of any lesser included offense. The defendants contend that the Superior Court abused its discretion with respect to this ruling.

(4) "The court is not obligated to charge the jury with respect to an included offense unless there is a rational basis in the evidence for a verdict acquitting the defendant of the offense charged and convicting him of the included offense." 11 Del.C. § 206(c). The Superior Court found no rational basis in the evidence to support a jury finding under any lesser included offense of kidnapping in the second degree, and we find no error or abuse of discretion with respect to that ruling. At trial, the victim testified that she was told "to shut up, move over or he [one of the defendants] was going to kill" her. The victim pleaded with the defendants to take her car and release her but the defendants refused. In contrast, Nave, the only defendant to testify at trial, asserted that the victim's account was untruthful and that she voluntarily agreed to give the three escapees a ride to Route 202. He did admit, however, that they later stole the car.

(5) If the defendants' versions of the incident were to be believed, there was no kidnapping because the victim was in no way restrained and one must be unlawfully restrained to be...