Court Opinion

ID: 9525028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:59:18.615312+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:12:35.880866
License: Public Domain

R. B. Burns, P.J.
(dissenting). I must dissent. People v Adams, 389 Mich 222; 205 NW2d 415 (1973), held that in order to establish asportation sufficient for kidnapping, the movement must not be merely incidental to an underlying lesser crime.
In People v Hardesty, 67 Mich App 376; 241 NW2d 214 (1976), this Court held that the test set forth in Adams did not apply when the offenses charged were coequal. I agree with such a rule. To *72hold otherwise would effectively eliminate the offense of kidnapping. Even in the classic case of child kidnapping for ransom, the underlying offense of extortion would eliminate the kidnapping charge.
In addition, it is my opinion that the kidnapping, MCL 750.349; MSA 28.581, and the acts of criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520b; MSA 28.788(2), were separate and distinct acts, and conviction of both kidnapping and criminal sexual conduct did not constitute double jeopardy.
I would affirm.