State v. Segura
12 La.App. 3 Cir. 899, 2013 La. App. LEXIS 379, 129 So. 3d 76 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Aggravated kidnapping under Louisiana law (La.R.S. 14:44) does not require both forcible seizing and carrying from one place to another if the victim is forcibly imprisoned or secreted, and the extortion element is satisfied if the defendant seeks to obtain anything of apparent present or prospective value or advantage by playing upon the victim's fear and hope of eventual release, regardless of the objective monetary worth of the demand.
Facts:
- On July 9, 2011, Brian Segura was an inmate housed in cell number thirteen of the Iberia Parish Jail with two other inmates, Victor Goodman and Jeremy Richard.
- When Deputy John Harrington entered cell number thirteen for a morning head count, Segura, Goodman, and Richard captured him, handcuffed him, bound his feet, and threatened him with homemade knives.
- The three inmates took Deputy Harrington's wallet and keys.
- Segura, Goodman, and Richard then attempted to negotiate for their transfer out of the Iberia Parish Jail, demanding to speak with the FBI, and requesting a two-way radio, a cell phone, cigarettes, and a lighter.
- The inmates threatened to harm Deputy Harrington if their demands were not met, stating their intent was to expose jail conditions and secure transfer.
- The situation was resolved only when a SWAT team stormed the cell and freed Deputy Harrington.
Procedural Posture:
- Brian Segura was charged with aggravated kidnapping (La.R.S. 14:44) and armed robbery (La.R.S. 14:64).
- A jury trial commenced on January 17, 2012.
- On January 19, 2012, the jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged on both counts.
- On March 28, 2012, Brian Segura was sentenced to life imprisonment for aggravated kidnapping and fifty years at hard labor for armed robbery, with sentences to be served concurrently with each other and consecutively with any other sentence.
- Brian Segura did not file a motion to reconsider the sentence.
- Brian Segura, as appellant, perfected a timely appeal to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, alleging insufficient evidence to sustain the aggravated kidnapping conviction, with the State of Louisiana as appellee.
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 State fail to prove the essential elements of aggravated kidnapping, specifically the relocation of the victim and the extortion of something of objective monetary value, when inmates capture a jailer within a cell, make demands including items like cigarettes and a cell phone, and threaten harm if demands are not met?
Opinions:
Majority - Pickett, Judge
No, the State did not fail to prove the essential elements of aggravated kidnapping. The court rejected Segura's argument that the relocation element was missing, explaining that Louisiana Revised Statute 14:44 offers alternative methods for committing aggravated kidnapping, including "imprisoning or forcible secreting of any person" (La.R.S. 14:44(3)). Capturing Deputy Harrington within the cell and holding him there satisfied this element, making proof of movement from one place to another unnecessary. Regarding the extortion element, the court affirmed that the focus is not on the objective monetary value of the demanded items but "whether the defendant sought to obtain something of value, be it sex or money or loss of simple human dignity, by playing upon the victim’s fear and hope of eventual release in order to gain compliance with his demands," citing State v. Arnold. The court found that cigarettes, a lighter, a cell phone, and a transfer to another facility were "all things of value" that Segura sought to obtain through threats to kill the deputy, thus satisfying the extortion element. The perceived 'lunacy' or minor nature of the demands did not negate the element of extortion when coupled with threats and fear.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the interpretation of Louisiana's aggravated kidnapping statute (La.R.S. 14:44), particularly reinforcing its disjunctive nature regarding the actus reus, meaning the state can prove kidnapping through forcible imprisonment without needing to demonstrate movement of the victim. It broadly construes the extortion element, emphasizing that "anything of apparent present or prospective value" extends beyond monetary items to include advantages or concessions, however minor they may seem, when sought through a victim's fear. The ruling has significant implications for hostage situations where perpetrators' demands might appear trivial or non-monetary, ensuring such actions can still be prosecuted as aggravated kidnapping if the intent to compel compliance through leveraging fear is present.
