Under these facts, we do not believe the kidnapping was merely incidental to the murder. It was the essential means of committing the murder so that the perpetrators could not be identified. We find no error in this assignment. See footnote 2 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court of Raleigh County. 1 We emphasize that this holding should not be interpreted to mean that an accomplice can be placed on the witness stand solely to inform the jury of his conviction of the same crime charged to the defendant.
Testimony having that intent and so limited as to achieve that intent is error.
The defendant asserts two other assignments of error which we find to be without merit. The first is that he was not provided with discovery. The defendant's initial attorney agreed to waive discovery if the State would furnish a complete transcript of the trial of the codefendant, Mr. Reynolds. Thereafter, present counsel was appointed. The State furnished him with copies of statements intended to be used at trial, as well as the criminal records of the State's witnesses.