Opinion ID: 1943965
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Kidnapping Issue Remanded

Text: In this case, the record reflects that Gronenthal's attorney asked the trial judge to make an initial determination whether the facts of the State's case supported an independent conviction for kidnapping. In response, the trial judge simply stated that it is a jury question as to whether or not the restraint of the victim interfered substantially with the victim's liberty and it was much more restraint than necessary to commit the underlying offenses. Therefore, I'll let the kidnapping go to the jury based on the evidence that we have had. This Court's holding in Weber requires the trial judge to function as a gatekeeper. In Gronenthal's case, contrary to the requirements of Weber, the trial judge did not identify any facts in the record which warranted a conclusion that, as a matter of law, there was much more interference with the victim's liberty than was ordinarily incident to the other underlying offenses, [21] all of which also included an element of restraint. In the absence of the analysis mandated in Weber, it was impossible for this Court to review on appeal the trial judge's decision to submit kidnapping charge to the jury, as a matter of law. Accordingly, this Court remanded that issue to the Superior Court.