Court Opinion

ID: 9544146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:52:31.324032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:07.902394
License: Public Domain

Prager, J.,
dissenting: I respectfully dissent from syllabus ¶ 9 and the corresponding portions of the opinion. I would reverse because the trial court erred in denying defendant’s request for an instruction on the lesser included offense of kidnapping and in failing to define “bodily harm.” In my judgment the evidentiary record raises a factual issue as to whether or not “bodily harm” was inflicted upon the person kidnapped.
The key to a determination of this issue is the construction of the term “bodily harm” as used in K. S. A. 21-3421. The majority, in its construction of the term, relies upon numerous California cases which construe “bodily harm” to mean injury to the body of the kidnap victim. These cases have given rise to a California jury instruction in which “bodily harm” is defined to mean “substantial injury to the body of a person who was kidnapped by the application of physical force above and in addition to the force which is necessarily involved in the commission of such kidnapping.” (CAL-JIC No. 9.23.) This instruction has been judicially approved. See People v. Reed, 270 Cal. App. 2d 37, 75 Cal. Rptr. 430.
Reliance upon the above language is well placed, for we have previously held the term “unharmed” to mean “uninjured.” (State v. Cox, 188 Kan. 500, 363 P. 2d 528.) It would therefore logically follow that one who suffered bodily harm must be injured. Rut the majority does not reach this conclusion. The record does not conclusively establish that the victim here was injured. While it is apparent the defendant intended to inflict injury upon the victim, there *716is no conclusive proof that injury occurred. The majority concludes defendant’s actions alone were sufficient to constitute the infliction of bodily harm. The majority has thus determined the defendant was guilty of aggravated kidnapping or nothing. I cannot agree. The error in the reasoning of the majority is the assumption that an aggravated assault alone amounts to the infliction of bodily harm without regard to the result of the assault. Under 21-3421 infliction of bodily harm is a required element of aggravated kidnapping. This means that through the actions of the defendant, either directly or indirectly, the victim has suffered something more than a trivial injury. The record does not indicate that a substantial injury occurred here. In my opinion the refusal of the court to give the requested lesser included offense instruction and to define “bodily harm” constituted reversible error.