Court Opinion

ID: 3735067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 07:01:11.007358+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:20:51.124935
License: Public Domain

{¶ 18} Although I concur in the majority opinion with regard to assignments of error one, two, and three, I am constrained to dissent with regard to assignment of error four for the reason that the kidnapping with which appellant was charged and convicted was committed with the same animus as the two separate rapes of which the jury found appellant to be guilty.
 {¶ 19} The first count of the indictment made the single kidnapping charge and states that appellant, "in violation of R.C. 2905.01 of the Ohio Revised Code, did, by force, threat, or deception, remove another, to wit: [A.B.], from the place where she was found, and/or restrain another, to wit: [A.B.], of her liberty, with the purpose to engage in sexual activity as defined in section 2907.01 of the Ohio Revised Code, with the said [A.B.], against her will[.]"
 {¶ 20} Accordingly, appellant was tried and convicted of kidnapping, for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity with A.B., and such offense and the two rape convictions were committed with the same animus so that the kidnapping conviction should be merged with the two rape convictions. The fourth assignment of error should be sustained.
  WHITESIDE, J., retired of the Tenth Appellate District, assigned to active duty under authority of Section 6(C), Article IV, Ohio Constitution.