Opinion ID: 1305815
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Refusing to Strike the Commonwealth's Evidence Relating to Abduction for Pecuniary Benefit

Text: Cardwell contends that the trial court erred in refusing to strike the Commonwealth's evidence relating to the charge of capital murder committed during the course of abduction for pecuniary benefit, the abduction charge itself, and the related firearm charge. He argues that, because the drugs were taken at the apartment, there is no evidence that the placing of the victim in the car and taking him in the westerly direction was done for the purpose of extorting money or other pecuniary benefit. Cardwell further argues that [w]hen the Commonwealth ended its case in chief, it still had a murder based upon a robbery. It did not have [a murder based upon] an abduction with intent to extort money or other pecuniary benefit. A defendant may be convicted of abduction in addition to robbery if the victim's detention `is separate and apart from, and not merely incidental to, the restraint employed in the commission of [robbery].' Hoke v. Commonwealth, 237 Va. 303, 311, 377 S.E.2d 595, 600 (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 310, 314, 337 S.E.2d 711, 714 (1985)), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. 3201, 105 L.Ed.2d 709 (1989). Thus, to constitute an abduction, separate and apart from a robbery, the victim's detention must be greater than the restraint that is intrinsic in a robbery. Id. at 311, 377 S.E.2d at 600. Additionally, an abduction committed for the purpose of avoiding an arrest for a robbery or to retain the fruits of a robbery is perpetrated with the intent to extort pecuniary benefit. Cortner v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 557, 560-61, 281 S.E.2d 908, 910 (1981). In the present case, the transporting of Brown from the robbery scene was a detention separate and apart from, and not merely incidental to, the robbery and was greater than the restraint intrinsic in a robbery. Further, the evidence clearly supports a finding that the abduction was committed to protect the fruits of the robbery and to escape an arrest. Therefore, the evidence supports the charge of an abduction with the intent to extort a pecuniary benefit. Consequently, the trial court did not err in refusing to strike the Commonwealth's evidence.