Court Opinion

ID: 9642100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:48:22.11302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:43.106653
License: Public Domain

ODOM, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent to the majority holding that the evidence in this case is sufficient to prove appellant abducted the victim.
V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Sec. 20.01(2), defines “abduct”:
“‘Abduct’ means to restrain a person with intent to prevent his liberation by:
“(A) secreting or holding him in a place where he is not likely to be found; or
“(B) using or threatening to use deadly force.”
The majority holds the evidence sufficient under Sec. 20.01(2)(A), supra. The majority relies on one fact to support its conclusion: “The victim was in fact held in a place-an automobile being driven on city streets-where he was not found for approximately one hour.”
I am unable to agree that this evidence is sufficient. The fact remains that the child was found within a relatively brief period of time, the car was stolen from the victim’s father and identified to the police, and it was being driven on public streets. It stretches reason to say that spending an hour riding on public streets in a known car constitutes being held in a place where one is not likely to be found. The fact that the child was not found for approximately one hour will not support an inference that the child was not likely to be found. In truth, the facts support the opposite.
I dissent.