Opinion ID: 1980879
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Criminal Confinement as a B Felony

Text: Corn next asserts the trial court erred when it instructed the jury that if the State did not prove each element of the kidnapping counts, it could convict Corn on the lesser included offense of criminal confinement as a class D felony or as a class B felony if the offense were committed while armed with a deadly weapon. Ind.Code § 35-42-3-3(1). Defense counsel objected to that instruction, noting that neither the charging information on the seven kidnapping counts nor the kidnapping statute mentioned deadly weapon. Our Court of Appeals examined a similar question in Correll v. State (1994), Ind.App., 639 N.E.2d 677. Correll had escaped from the Indiana State Farm at Putnamville. Armed with a stolen shotgun, he forced a woman to drive him to Indianapolis and then put her into the trunk of her car. At trial, the instruction for class A felony kidnapping stated: to convict the defendant ... the State must have proved each of the following elements: the defendant 1. knowingly or intentionally 2. removed another person, by fraud, enticement, force or threat of force, from one place to another with intent to obtain the release, or intent to aid in the escape of any person from lawful detention. Id. at 679. On appeal, Correll argued that since the kidnapping charge did not mention a deadly weapon, he was convicted of a crime that included elements not contained in the charging information. Id. at 680. The Court of Appeals agreed and noted: In order to convict Correll of class B felony confinement, the state was required to allege Correll was armed with a deadly weapon. Id. The court remanded with instructions to modify Correll's conviction from class B criminal confinement to class D criminal confinement. Corn's case has factual similarities with Correll's. Both defendants were charged under the same statute, kidnapping as a class A felony. In the instructions, Corn's trial court used essentially the same language that the trial judge in Correll had used with respect to the lesser included charge of criminal confinement: In Corn's case, Final Instruction No. 9 read: If you find that the State has failed to prove any one of the essential elements of the crime kidnapping, you should find the defendant not guilty of that crime. You should then decide whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt all elements of the included crime of criminal confinement. The included crime of criminal confinement is defined by statute as follows: A person who knowingly or intentionally confines another person without the other person's consent commits criminal confinement, a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class B felony if it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon. (R. at 119-120.) Because the class B felony was not properly a lesser included offense of the class A kidnapping, as the latter had been charged, Corn is due the same relief afforded in Correll. We will remand with instructions to modify Corn's criminal confinement conviction to a class D felony.