State v. Williams
860 S.W.2d 364, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1170, 1993 WL 286873 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Movement or confinement of a victim, even if brief or within a vehicle, constitutes kidnapping if it increases the risk of harm or danger to the victim beyond that inherent in the accompanying offense, and a common object used as a bludgeon can be a dangerous instrument for armed criminal action regardless of whether serious injury actually occurs.
Facts:
- On March 26, 1991, Gregory Williams attacked D.M. during daylight hours in a parking lot in the City of St. Louis.
- Williams pushed D.M. into her parked car where he then assaulted her.
- When D.M. resisted the assault, Williams repeatedly struck her head with a 40 oz. Magnum Malt bottle, stunning her and causing blood to flow from a cut on her forehead into her eyes.
- Williams told D.M. to drive into an alley.
- Before Williams could force D.M. to comply, a witness called the police, and Williams was arrested at the scene.
- D.M. was later treated at a hospital for multiple lacerations, abrasions, and bruises; the wound on her forehead required sutures and left a scar.
Procedural Posture:
- Gregory Williams was found guilty by a jury in a trial court of attempted rape, armed criminal action (two counts), and kidnapping.
- The trial court sentenced Williams as a persistent sexual offender and a prior, persistent, and class X offender to consecutive terms of life, thirty years, thirty years, and thirty years.
- Williams filed a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, which the trial court denied without an evidentiary hearing.
- Williams appealed his judgments of conviction and the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does movement or confinement of a victim, even if brief or within a vehicle, constitute kidnapping when it increases the risk of harm or facilitates the commission of another felony, or is it merely incidental to that other felony? 2. Is a common object, such as a beer bottle, considered a "dangerous instrument" for the purposes of armed criminal action when it is used as a bludgeon? 3. Is it impermissible "stacking" for a trial court to apply both a "persistent sexual offender" enhancement and a "class X offender" enhancement, relying in part on the same prior conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Crandall, Presiding Judge
Yes, movement or confinement of a victim constitutes kidnapping when it increases the risk of harm or facilitates the commission of another felony. The court held that Williams's actions of pushing D.M. into her car and attempting to force her to drive to another location increased the risk of harm or danger to D.M. and created the potential for more serious criminal activity. Confinement in the automobile made escape more difficult, decreased the likelihood of observation by witnesses, and added to D.M.'s terror, thereby satisfying the "increased risk of harm or danger" test for kidnapping. The court affirmed that a beer bottle, when wielded as a bludgeon, is a dangerous instrument capable of causing serious physical injury or death for armed criminal action, regardless of whether serious physical injury actually occurred. Finally, the court found that it was not impermissible "stacking" to apply both persistent sexual offender and class X offender enhancements, as neither statute prohibits the application of the other. Even assuming error, the court deemed it harmless because Williams's Class X offender status alone required him to serve 40 years of his life sentence, making the persistent sexual offender enhancement, which mandated a minimum of 30 years, mere surplusage.
Concurring - Reinhard, J.
Justice Reinhard concurred with the majority opinion.
Concurring - Crist, J.
Justice Crist concurred with the majority opinion.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of Missouri's kidnapping statute, emphasizing that the 'incidental' test focuses on whether the confinement or movement creates an increased risk of harm, rather than just the duration or distance. It provides guidance that even brief confinement within a vehicle, if it isolates the victim or facilitates further criminal acts, can support a kidnapping conviction. Furthermore, the decision reaffirms that common objects can qualify as dangerous instruments when used as weapons, and establishes a practical approach to sentencing enhancements, particularly regarding the harmless error doctrine when multiple enhancements result in overlapping or subordinate minimum sentences.
