Opinion ID: 1450205
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Kidnapping of A.B.

Text: Blackburn argues that his conviction of kidnapping A.B. is not supported by sufficient evidence. He was charged with taking or confining A.B. by force, threat, or deception to facilitate the commission of any crime. K.S.A. 21-3420. Blackburn insists there was no evidence from which the jury could find that he took or confined A.B. by force or threat. Blackburn asserts that A.B.'s presence in his pickup was incidental to her mother's presence, i.e., A.B. entered the vehicle because her mother did and left the vehicle when her mother pushed her out. Blackburn emphasizes that (1) A.B. slept a good share of the time, (2) A.B. never requested or attempted to leave his vehicle, (3) he never threatened A.B. directly, and (4) he never forced A.B. to do anything. Blackburn fails to take into account that as a matter of law, a child of tender years may not consent to its seizure. State v. Zimmer, 198 Kan. 479, 500, 426 P.2d 267, cert. denied 389 U.S. 933 (1967). As a practical matter, under the facts of the case at bar, if S.M. was taken or confined, then so was A.B.A.B., who was four years old, could not remove herself from the adult drama played out in the pickup as it traveled the interstate. The evidence was sufficient for a jury to find that the taking or confining was by threat. Evidence was presented that the taking or confining of A.B. was to facilitate the rape of S.M. A jury reasonably could conclude that S.M. would not have accepted Blackburn's offer of a ride if he had refused to take A.B. Multiplicity of Aggravated Kidnapping and Rape Convictions Blackburn argues that his convictions of aggravated kidnapping and rape are multiplicitous because they involved the same force and bodily harm. He claims [t]he jury was instructed that the bodily harm necessary to find [him] guilty of aggravated kidnapping was rape. Blackburn's claim is not correct. The instruction informed the jury that  bodily harm includes, but is not limited to, the act of rape.  The jury was not required to find that rape was the bodily harm inflicted upon S.M. Evidence of bodily harm, in addition to rape, was supplied by S.M.'s testimony. State v. Mason, 250 Kan. 393, 396-98, 827 P.2d 748 (1992). In order to find Blackburn guilty of rape, the jury was instructed, in part, that the act of sexual intercourse was committed without the consent of [S.M.] under circumstances when she was overcome by force or fear. There was evidence of force (the grabbing of her hair and throat) and fear (the threat to kill her). The evidence introduced to prove aggravated kidnapping and rape did not involve the same force and bodily harm. Aggravated kidnapping and rape do not share the same elements. Each offense requires proof of a fact not required in proving the other. Blackburn also argues the convictions are multiplicitous because rape is a lesser included offense of aggravated kidnapping. We held in Wisner v. State, 216 Kan. 523, Syl. ¶ 3, 532 P.2d 1051 (1975), that rape is not a lesser included offense of aggravated kidnapping. Blackburn's convictions for aggravated kidnapping and rape are not multiplicitous. Affirmed.