Goolsby v. State
2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 2959, 718 S.E.2d 9, 311 Ga. App. 650 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the test established in Garza v. State, the asportation element of kidnapping is met only when the victim's movement is not merely incidental to another crime but serves to substantially isolate the victim or expose them to a significant, independent danger.
Facts:
- Terry Lee Goolsby broke into the home of S.P., a 70-year-old woman, on two separate occasions.
- During the second invasion, S.P. got up from her couch and took a few steps toward her kitchen.
- Goolsby emerged from the kitchen, grabbed S.P.'s arms, and forcefully walked her backward a couple of steps to the couch.
- Goolsby then pushed S.P. down on the couch and raped her.
- Three months later, Goolsby broke into the home of another woman, H.M.M.
- H.M.M. saw Goolsby and ran for the front door to escape.
- Goolsby caught H.M.M. from behind, pulled her away from the door, and began to struggle with her.
- While dragging her toward the bedroom, Goolsby used a knife and beat H.M.M. when she clung to another door, eventually forcing her into the bedroom where he raped her.
Procedural Posture:
- Terry Lee Goolsby was indicted on 13 felony counts, including two counts of kidnapping with bodily injury for attacks on S.P. and H.M.M.
- A jury in the trial court convicted Goolsby on all counts.
- Goolsby filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- Goolsby (appellant) appealed his two convictions for kidnapping with bodily injury to the Court of Appeals of Georgia, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for the asportation element.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the movement of victims S.P. and H.M.M. by Terry Lee Goolsby satisfy the asportation element of kidnapping under the four-part test from Garza v. State?
Opinions:
Majority - McFadden, J.
No as to S.P., and Yes as to H.M.M. The movement of a victim constitutes asportation for kidnapping only if it meets the criteria established in Garza v. State. Applying the four-factor Garza test, the court found the movement of S.P. was insufficient to establish asportation. The movement was minimal ('just a few steps'), occurred immediately before the rape, was an inherent part of exercising control for the rape, and did not significantly increase the danger to S.P. or her isolation. In contrast, the movement of H.M.M. did constitute asportation. Goolsby moved her from the front door, an escape route, to a bedroom, which was not an inherent part of the subsequent rape and created a significant, independent danger by isolating her from protection or rescue and enhancing Goolsby's control over her.
Analysis:
This case is a key application of the retroactivity or 'pipeline' rule for new judicial standards, applying the 2008 Garza test to crimes committed in 2002. It provides a clear, comparative illustration of what separates movement that is merely incidental to another crime from movement that satisfies the asportation element of kidnapping. The court's contrasting analysis of the two incidents establishes a practical guide for lower courts in determining when movement is 'criminally significant' enough to warrant a separate kidnapping conviction, focusing on whether it enhances the defendant's control and isolates the victim from rescue.
