Title: State v. Lang

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Lang  (93-058); 164 Vt 598; 664 A.2d 267

[Filed 28-Jun-1995]

                               ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 93-058

                              MAY TERM, 1995


Stat of Vermont                        }     APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.                                }     District Court of Vermont,
                                       }     Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
                                       }
Travis Lang                            }     DOCKET NO. 1061/1062/63-3-92Cncr

                    In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

          Defendant Travis Lang was convicted by jury of one count of
burglary in violation of 13 V.S.A.  1201, and two counts of kidnapping in
violation of 13 V.S.A.  2405.  On appeal, he claims that the State failed
to prove one of the kidnapping charges, and that the trial court erred by
sentencing him to a term of 20 years to life imprisonment on the second
kidnapping charge. We affirm.

          All three charges against defendant stem from an incident in
December 1991 when defendant and an accomplice burglarized the home of
Robert and Estelle Landry.  Mr. Landry, age 79, and in poor health, and Mrs.
Landry, age 87, were both present during the burglary. Mr. Landry's hands 
and feet were bound to his poster bed with duct tape, and although Mrs.
Landry was not physically restrained, she was verbally coerced to remain in
her bedroom.  The men sabotaged the couple's telephone, ransacked the house 
for approximately fifteen minutes, and then left.  Afterwards, Mrs. Landry
freed her husband, but because the telephone had been disabled she was not
able to solicit help until the next morning when the paper carrier arrived.


          Vermont's kidnapping statute provides that a person commits the 
crime if he "knowingly restrains another person with the intent to . . . 
facilitate the commission of another crime."  13 V.S.A.  2405(a)(1)(E).  
The term "restrain" means "to restrict substantially the movement of another 
person without the person's consent . . . by . . . confining the restrained 
person for a substantial period . . . ."  13 V.S.A.  2404(3)(C).  Defendant 
contends that the evidence failed to show that he "knowingly" restrained
Mrs. Landry because she was not physically bound, and that even if she is
considered to have been restrained, it was not for a "substantial period."

          We summarily reject defendant's contention that he did not 
"knowingly" restrain Mrs. Landry because he did not physically bind her.
Although determining defendant's knowledge is a subjective inquiry, the 
State need prove only that defendant intended "`to accomplish the precise 
act which the law prohibits.'"  State v. Audette, 149 Vt. 218, 220,