Opinion ID: 2331454
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: [¶ 29] Merchant's only significant sufficiency of the evidence contention relates to his assertion that the evidence is insufficient to support both kidnapping convictions. The kidnapping statute, 17-A M.R.S.A. §§ 301(1)(A)(3), (4), states in pertinent part: 1. A person is guilty of kidnapping if... A. He knowingly restrains another person with the intent to . . . . (3) inflict bodily injury upon him or subject him-to conduct defined as criminal in chapter 11; [the sex crimes chapter] (4) terrorize him or a 3rd person .... [7] [¶ 30] Here, the evidence was sufficient to support Merchant's conviction for two separate kidnapping events. The first occurred when Merchant physically restrained the seventeen-year-old girl by driving her miles down a back road and then physically assaulting her and committing sex crimes upon her. These actions violated section 301(1)(A)(3). A separate kidnapping event occurred when, after Merchant had completed his sexual assault and had driven back out onto Route 1, he continued to restrain the victim by keeping her in his vehicle and not allowing her to dress for some time, and then terrorized her with threats of bodily injury and physical harm if she reported what had occurred. These actions violated section 301(1)(A)(4). Thus, the evidence supports both kidnapping convictions as events that occurred at separate times and under differing circumstances. [¶ 31] Merchant's other contentions do not merit further discussion. The entry is: Judgments affirmed.