Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

752 So. 2d 149

Docket No. 99-KO-1204.

State v. Davillier

STATE of Louisiana v. Davede DAVILLIER.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided December 10, 1999.

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1999-12-10

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently November 2010

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“evidence that the offender relocated the victim from one physical setting or environment to another.”

quoted by 4 later decisions, including 4 So. 3d 189 - State v. Stipe, 813 So. 2d 377 - State v. Bowie

“defendant dragged the victim by the hair from one side of her truck to the other and forced her to enter the cab, from where she ran and escaped.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 842 So. 2d 1143 - State v. Williams

Relies on Stall v. PROF. DIVERS OF NEW ORLEANS

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1999-12-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*150 PER CURIAM.[*]

¶2The defendant seeks review of his conviction of second degree kidnapping.

¶3The defendant dragged the victim by the hair from one side of her truck to the other and forced her to enter the cab, from where she ran and escaped. We agree that "the distance traveled during the forcible seizure [is not required to] be any particular length." State v. Davillier, 98-0790, p. 5 (La.App. 1st Cir.4/1/99), 739 So.2d 1010. However, La.Rev.Stat. 14:44.1 B(1) requires the state to prove that the offender forcibly seized and carried the victim "from one place to another," a term which requires evidence that the offender relocated the victim from one physical setting or environment to another.

¶4Evidence that relator moved the victim from one side of her truck to the other, and then obtained from her the keys to the vehicle and ordered her inside, did not satisfy La.Rev.Stat. 14:44.1 B(1), as he had not yet moved her from the immediate physical environment in which his initial physical assault had taken place. Accordingly, the conviction of second degree kidnapping must be set aside.

¶5Although the victim ran from the truck and escaped, the evidence that relator committed acts tending directly toward accomplishing his purpose, i.e., the relocation of the victim from one place to another, is sufficient proof that relator committed the offense of attempted second degree kidnapping in violation of La.Rev.Stat. 14:27; 14:44.1. Accordingly, a judgment of guilty of attempted second degree kidnapping is entered, and the case is remanded to the district court for resentencing on that count only.

¶6In all other respects the application is denied.

¶7TRAYLOR, J., would deny the writ.

NOTES

¶8[*] Knoll, J., not on panel. Rule IV, Part 2, § 3.

/752/so2d/149 · .json · Public domain