KEEPING KIDNAPPING IN ITS PLACE - WHEN DOES THE KENTUCKY EXEMPTION APPLY?

• NCJ Number: 55711
• Journal: Kentucky Law Journal Volume: 66 Issue: 2 Dated: (1977-1978) Pages: 448-458
• Author(s): A A CHESNUT
• Date Published: 1978
• Length: 11 pages
• Corporate Author: University of Kentucky
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

EFFORTS TO NARROW THE DEFINITION OF KIDNAPPING, PARTICULARLY IN ASSOCIATION WITH RESTRAINTS APPLIED TO VICTIMS IN THE CONDUCT OF OTHER CRIMES, ARE DISCUSSED IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE KENTUCKY EXEMPTION LAW.

Abstract

KENTUCKY HAS A UNIQUE SOLUTION TO LIMITING THE DEFINITION OF KIDNAPPING; AN EXEMPTION HAS BEEN ENACTED IN THE KENTUCKY PENAL CODE. THIS EXEMPTION IS DESIGNED TO PREVENT KIDNAPPING CHARGES WHERE THE CONDUCT OF A SUSPECT HAS 'NO CRIMINOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE TO THE EVIL TOWARD WHICH KIDNAPPING IS DIRECTED.' THE APPLICATION OF THIS EXEMPTION CAN BEST BE SEEN FROM AN EXAMINATION OF THE ONLY TWO CASES WHICH DIRECTLY INVOLVE THE EXEMPTION. IN CALLOWAY VERSUS COMMONWEALTH (KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS, 1977), THE KENTUCKY SUPREME COURT REFUSED TO APPLY THE EXEMPTION WHERE THE DEFENDANT DROVE A WOMAN FROM KENTUCKY TO INDIANA AND ADMITTEDLY RAPED AND ROBBED HER. THE COURT REASONED THAT THE EXEMPTION DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF KENTUCKY NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED UNLESS THE FORCEFUL TAKING OF THE WOMAN IN A CAR FOR A SHORT DISTANCE ACROSS THE STATE LINE WAS KIDNAPPING. IN THIS CASE, THE COURT'S REASONING IS FLAWED BECAUSE IT FAILED TO VIEW ALL THE ACTIONS OF THE DEFENDANT VIS-A-VIS THE VICTIM AS A CONTINUUM IRRESPECTIVE OF THE JURISDICTION IN WHICH THEY WERE COMMITTED. THE FORCEFUL TAKING OF THE VICTIM IN THE CAR WAS FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSES OF ROBBERY AND RAPE, AND APART FROM THESE PURPOSES, THE CRIMINOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF KIDNAPPING WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE RESTRAINT OF THE VICTIM. IN THE SECOND CASE, TIMMONS VERSUS COMMONWEALTH (KENTUCKY 1977), THE COURT REFUSED TO APPLY THE EXEMPTION IN A CASE INVOLVING THE MURDER OF A 3-YEAR-OLD BOY WHOSE BODY WAS FOUND SOME DISTANCE FROM HIS HOME 5 DAYS AFTER HE WAS REPORTED MISSING. THE COURT INDICATED THAT KIDNAPPING HAD OCCURRED BECAUSE THE VICTIM HAD BEEN TRANSPORTED A SUBSTANTIAL DISTANCE UNDER RESTRAINT, THUS CAUSING THE DEFENDANT TO INCUR GUILT FOR UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT. WHILE THE TIMMONS DECISION REFLECTS A NARROW READING OF THE EXEMPTION STATUTE, IT IS MORE REASONABLE THAN THE CALLOWAY DECISION. (RCB)