CHARLES W. FERGUSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Ferguson was convicted of robbery and kidnapping after forcing an Arby's manager and employees outside to a restroom at gunpoint during a robbery. The Fourth District upheld the kidnapping conviction, holding that the forced movement and confinement satisfied the three-prong Faison test for kidnapping as a separate felony from the robbery itself.
The kidnapping conviction was affirmed. The forced movement and confinement met the three-prong Faison test: the movement was not slight or incidental to the robbery, was not inherent in the nature of robbery, and had independent significance by making the crime easier to commit and reducing detection risk.
[1] Movement or confinement of a victim is sufficient to support a kidnapping charge if it is not slight, inconsequential, and merely incidental to another crime, not inheren…
[2] A threat to a victim's life can be as confining as physical barricades for the purpose of a kidnapping charge.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a kidnapping does not occur if the movement or confinement of the victim is inconsequential or inherent in the nature of the felony”
Establishes the foundational principle that mere incidental movement during another crime does not constitute kidnapping
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFerguson robbed an Arby's restaurant and, after receiving money, forced the manager and three employees outside at gunpoint and into a rear restroom. …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Kidnapping Definition cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
The defendant, convicted of robbery and kidnapping, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the kidnapping charge.
The defendant robbed an Arby’s restaurant. After he was given the money, the defendant, at gunpoint, forced the manager and three employees outside of the store and put them into a restroom located in the rear. The defendant told the victims to stay inside. After thirty seconds the manager peeked out. The defendant yelled, “get back into the bathroom”. The victims obeyed for another thirty seconds, when they looked out and observed the defendant riding off on a bicycle.
The appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support a kidnapping conviction because the movement of the victims to the outside restroom was slight, inconsequential, and merely incidental to the robbery. Kidnapping means “forcibly, secretly, or by threat confining, abducting, or imprisoning another ... with intent to commit or facilitate commission of any felony. Florida Statutes, § 787.01(l)(a)(2)(1985).
In Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1983), the Florida Supreme Court recognized that a kidnapping does not occur if the movement or confinement of the victim is inconsequential or inherent in the nature of the felony. Id. at 966. The court adopted a three prong test, taken from State v. Buggs, 219 Kan. 203, 547 P. 2d 720 (Kan.1976), to determine whether the confinement or movement is sufficient to support the charge:
[I]f a taking or confinement is alleged to have been done to facilitate the commission of another crime, to be kidnapping the resulting movement or confinement:
(a) Must not be slight, inconsequential and merely incidental to the other crime;
(b) Must not be of the kind inherent in the nature of the other crime; and
(c) Must have some significance independent of the other crime in that it makes the other crime substantially easier of commission or substantially lessens the risk of detection.
Faison at 965.
In Johnson v. State, 509 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), this court upheld a kidnapping conviction where the victim in a convenience store robbery was forced into an unlocked bathroom. In that case shopping carts were placed in front of the door. However, there is little reason to consider barricading a door as any more confining than pointing a gun at a victim and warning him to stay put. Certainly a prudent victim can be expected to pay as much heed to a direct or implied threat to his life as to other methods of securing his confinement.
We conclude that the movement and confinement in this case meets the Faison test. It was not slight, inconsequential or merely incidental to the robbery. The movement was not of the kind inherent in the nature of a robbery. It had significance independent of the robbery by making it easier to commit or substantially lessening the risk of detention. Cf Faison v. State; Johnson v. State; Lamarca v. State, 515 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Sanborn v. State, 513 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Taylor v. State, 481 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Carter v. State, 468 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 478 So. 2d 53 (Fla.1985); Sorey v. State, 419 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Dowdell v. State, 415 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. denied, 429 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1983); Harkins v. State, 380 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). We recognize a conflict with Chaney v. State, 464 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 479 So. 2d 118 (Fla.1985).
The judgment and sentence in this case are, therefore, affirmed.
DOWNEY and LETTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ferguson v. State, 533 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 1988)…GRIMES, Justice. We have for review Ferguson v. State, 519 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), because of direct conflict with Chaney v. State, 464 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 479 So. 2d 118 (Fla.1985). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3), of the Florida Constitution. [*764] Charles Fergus…
-
Payne v. State, 538 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…ing are affirmed, since the armed kidnapping in this case involved move [*1305] ment and confinement of the victim in a manner that is not inherent in or incidental to armed robbery. See Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963 (Fla.1983); Ferguson v. State, 519 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), approved, 533 So. 2d 763 (Fla.1988). In summary, in this case, unlike the circumstances existing in this court’s recent decision in Johnson v. State, 537 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), and Pickett v. State, 537 So. 2d 115 (Fla…
-
Padgett v. State, 537 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Ferguson v. State, 519 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 4th DCA), aff’d, 538 So. 2d 763 (Fla.1988); Brown v. State, 511 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Johnson v. State, 509 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Carter v. State, 468 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 478 So. 2d 53 (Fla.1985).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1983)
- Sorey v. State, 419 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Mueller v. N. Broward Hosp. Dist., 380 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Lamarca v. State, 515 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Johnson v. State, 509 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Glenard Chaney v. State, 464 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Sanborn v. State, 513 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Napoleon Dowdell v. State, 415 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Carter v. State, 468 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Taylor v. State, 481 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)