overruling necessity found where a jury was unable to reach a verdict
How later courts described this case
- overruling necessity found where a jury was unable to reach a verdict
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Steele Hays, dissenting in part. The issue is whether the evidence sustains appellant’s conviction for the crime of kidnapping independently of rape. The facts, in capsule, are these: The appellant drove the victim into the woods, taking along a pistol; at the first rebuff of his advances he told her, “I could blow you away and nobody would ever know it.” Indignant or frightened, or both, she walked away; the appellant followed and coaxed her back into the truck on assurances of good behavior only to then drive at high speed to a dead-end road, where he ordered her out, forced her to disrobe, and raped her on the tailgate of the truck. Finally, told to leave, she heard him fire a shot in her direction as she fled into the woods.
Granted, the victim’s presence was initially consensual, as the majority opinion notes, but she reentered the truck on assurances of proper conduct,which were promptly breached, and from that point, at least, there was a substantial interference with her liberty to a further point in time and distance where the rape occurred. I submit those facts constitute separate crimes of rape and kidnapping. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-11-102 (1987); Cook v. State, 284 Ark. 333 , 681 S.W.2d 378 (1984). The judgment should be affirmed without modification.
Glaze, J., joins in dissent. Corbin, J., joins.