Court Opinion

ID: 9611239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:53:56.451854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:11.310881
License: Public Domain

Prager, J.,
dissenting: I respectfully dissent from syllabus j[ 1 and that portion of the opinion holding that the infliction of superficial injuries is sufficient to satisfy the “bodily harm” element of K.S.A. 21-3421.
*161Under the language of the aggravated kidnapping statute, simple kidnapping is transformed into aggravated kidnapping “when bodily harm is inflicted upon the person kidnapped.” K.S.A. 21-3421. As with the victim in State v. Taylor, 217 Kan. 706, 538 P.2d 1375 (1975), the victim of the kidnapping in this case did not suffer any substantial physical injury. Once again, the majority is confusing the potential harm to the victim with the injury actually sustained. Even when viewed in a light most favorable to the state, the testimony presented at trial reveals nothing more than superficial cuts or scratches to the infant’s lip and back. Larry Brown, the infant’s father, testified that the boy’s lip apparently split upon hitting his father’s collarbone and that the infant had a scratch on his back. Garnett Orr, the mother of the infant, noticed a scratch on the baby’s back but did not remember any injury to his lip. Such insubstantial injuries should not be sufficient to transform a simple kidnapping into an aggravated one.
I would reverse the judgment of conviction on the count of aggravated kidnapping and direct the trial court to impose sentence on the basis of simple kidnapping. I am in agreement with the court’s disposition of the remaining points on appeal.