Opinion ID: 1668414
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The concurring opinion states:

Text: The prosecutor has not conceded that the defendant did not intend to cause physical harm to the victim.[ [24] ] The following is an excerpt from the prosecutor's brief: What is truly remarkable about this case is that two technically separate offenses were committed by different defendants during the same criminal episode. The evidence adduced at the trial of Jaffray and the Normandin brothers showed that their only intent was to commit secret confinement kidnapping. They only intended to confine Bruce Williams in order to force him to reveal the location where he sold Ronald Normandin's dog for crack cocaine. Jaffray's written statement shows that they intended to release him after the dog was retrieved. Due both to a pre-existing grudge and to the fact that Williams had stolen his friend's dog, Francis Hamilton apparently took it upon himself to beat Williams to death with a baseball bat.[ [25] ] While there is evidence that Jaffray bound and gagged Williams, there is no evidence that he beat Williams or encouraged others to do so. Nor would common sense suggest that, from the beginning, this incident was likely to end, as it did, in someone's death. [26] When Jaffray and the Normandins initially bound Williams, they had no intention of harming him, and they had no reason to believe that Hamilton would, in the prosecutor's words, take it upon himself to kill Williams. When the incident began, there was no indication that Hamilton might become involved in the situation, much less kill Williams. Because Jaffray did not intend to harm or terrorize Williams, it does not appear that the Model Penal Code would permit a conviction of the most serious grade of kidnapping as the concurring opinion suggests. [27] Rather, under the Model Penal Code, the crime of false imprisonment appears to most appropriately apply to Jaffray's conduct, although Jaffray might also have committed felonious restraint. [28]