What is kidnapping in the second degree

Overview

Kidnapping in the second degree under Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-94 is a severe felony offense that carries a mandatory minimum of three years in jail and a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

When people think of the term kidnapping, they visualize scenarios where someone is abducted and held against their will until a ransom is paid. Under Connecticut law, the abduction of an individual with the intent to compel the payment of money as a ransom is the more severe crime of kidnapping in the first degree in violation of § 53a-92, which is a Class A felony.

Many clients who get charged with kidnapping in the second degree are surprised how severe the penalty is and how easily you can be charged with this offense. Kidnapping and the less serious crime of unlawful restraint in Connecticut are very closely related, and often there is a fine line between the two. Unlawful restraint requires that the actor restrain someone against their will. Kidnaping involves the abduction of another person.

Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-91(2) defines abduction as restraining someone with the intent to prevent their liberation by either secreting or holding them in a place where they are not likely to be found or threatening to use physical force or intimidation. Under Connecticut law, if you abduct someone, it is kidnapping in the second degree. Connecticut creates an exception for abductions that were "incidental" to the commission of another crime. For example, someone who holds down a victim long enough to sexually assault someone could not be convicted for a violation of kidnapping in the second degree in violation of C.G.S. § 53a-94 if the abduction was incidental to the sexual assault.

Kidnapping has been frequently charged in domestic violence situations where a threat of physical force is used to force an intimate partner or spouse to go with the accused.

Unlawful restraint is closely associated and more commonly charged and involves restraint of another but does not rise to the level of an abduction. Kidnapping is one of the most severely punished crimes in Connecticut, and anyone charged with this offense should promptly speak with an experienced Connecticut criminal defense attorney.

To be convicted of the crime of C.G.S. § 53a-94 unlawful kidnapping in the second degree, the state's attorney must be able to prove the following elements of the crime:

1. The defendant abducts another person

A man is arguing with his girlfriend. He feels that she is cheating on him, and he is agitated. He goes to her apartment, and she tells him to leave. The man forces the woman to leave with him against her will by punching her and pulling her hair. He forces her into his car and drives around her a half-hour before the woman jumps out at a red light and runs away. The man could be convicted for kidnapping in the second degree in violation of C.G.S. § 53a-94 because he abducted his girlfriend.

A man poses as a uber driver as the bars are closing downtown in the early morning hours. An intoxicated woman gets into his car, thinking that he is her uber ride. The man takes the woman against her will to a secluded area and sexually assaults her while she is passed out. After the man is finished assaulting the woman, he drives around with her for several more hours. The man could be convicted for kidnapping in the second degree in violation of C.G.S. § 53a-94 because he abducted the woman.

Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-96 - Unlawful Restraint in the Second Degree

Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-92 - Kidnapping in the First Degree

Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-71 - Strangulation

Kidnapping is an intentional crime. If the accused believed that the victim voluntarily consented to go with the accused, then the accused could not be convicted. In some situations, victims may be terrified and internally feel that they are being forced to go with someone while overtly not expressing any resistance. If the victim's presence was voluntary, there could be no kidnapping.

There have been several arrests of victims in Connecticut who have made false kidnapping allegations, particularly in the domestic violence context. The motivations for these false claims could be jealousy, revenge, or simply an individual who has regret over an ill-advised sexual encounter.

Kidnapping can not be charged for restraint that only takes long enough to facilitate another crime. For example, holding someone at gunpoint long enough to rob a victim is not kidnapping in Connecticut as that restraint is considered to be incidental to the crime of robbery.

A violation of C.G.S. § 53a-94 kidnapping in the second degree is a Class B felony is punishable by a mandatory minimum of three years in jail and a maximum of 20 years in jail and a fine of up to $15,000.

For more information about defending kidnapping in the second-degree charges in violation of C.G.S. § 53a-94, contact Stamford criminal lawyer Allan F. Friedman to arrange your free, no-obligation, initial consultation. Mr. Friedman can be reached 24/7 at (203) 357-5555, or you can contact us online for a prompt response.

Client Reviews

Attorney Friedman is the best!! He was extremely helpful and put me at ease with staying on top of my case leaving me with little to worry about. He is hardworking and was extremely flexible with my work schedule in setting up appointments and phone calls. His worth ethic, compassion, and fair price point really set him apart! Raul M.

Not only does Allan give exceptional legal advice, but he also takes the time to get to know his clients on an individual level. He is always available to answer questions, and he is truly dedicated to achieving a fair outcome in each case he is presented with. Knowledgeable, professional & compassionate. Highly recommend! Jennifer S.

Allan has been my personal attorney for over 10 years. He is creative, had working, dedicated, tenacious, and incredibly reliable. I highly recommend him, please don’t hesitate to contact him for service. George K.

I would highly recommend Attorney Allan F. Friedman to anyone seeking counsel in Connecticut. He represented our family's interests in a very professional, fair and effective way. I would give him my highest endorsement. Greg S.

Absolutely Exceptional Attorney. I give Allan a 10 out of 5 - he is that good and far beyond excellent!!! Allan handled my traffic matter with the highest level of professionalism, empathy and efficiency that anyone could ever ask for… Jose

This man literally saved my life! I had a criminal mischief and domestic charge along with a protective order put on me. Atty Friedman successfully got me into the required needed to have these charges dropped. Then came the felony protective order violation...Long story short I walked out of court today with all my charges nolled. Anonymous

Movement of a victim from an automobile parked on the service station lot to the station building on the lot was asportation. State v. Talbot, 24 Or App 379, 545 P2d 599 (1976)

Evidence, inter alia, that defendant was a stranger to victim, that victim had left her car in haste, and that victim's body was discovered some distance from car, was sufficient to support finding of second degree kidnapping. State v. Nulph, 31 Or App 1115, 572 P2d 642 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Kidnapping was not merely incident to transaction involving also robbery and sodomy where defendant drove victim's car several miles with bound victim in back seat. State v. Steele, 33 Or App 491, 577 P2d 524 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

California bail bondsmen took person from one place to another "without consent or legal authority" within meaning of this section where they pursued and captured bail violator in Oregon and returned him to custody of California court. State v. Epps, 36 Or App 519, 585 P2d 425 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Where indictment alleged that defendant took child from its mother at direction of father and father had right to custody, taking was with consent of lawful custodian, and thus defendant could not be indicted under this section. State v. Edmiston, 43 Or App 13, 602 P2d 282 (1979)

Where defendant pursued victim, seized her and carried her to other side of road and attempted to force her down beside some shrubbery, finder of fact could fairly have inferred that defendant intended to interfere substantially with victim's personal liberty within meaning of this section. State v. Cazares, 44 Or App 621, 606 P2d 688 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Evidence that, inter alia, defendant grabbed and slapped victim, threw her in car and held her down while he drove out of town was sufficient to show lack of consent to transportation. State v. Dorsey, 44 Or App 721, 607 P2d 204 (1980)

Where defendant drove victim substantial distance in his pickup truck and detained her for over eight hours, this was not type of minimal displacement incidental to commission of sodomy and failure to merge kidnapping and sodomy convictions and sentences was not error. State v. Bateman, 48 Or App 357, 616 P2d 1206 (1980)

Where victims were tied and gagged and moved around their house but not taken beyond the house or moved a substantial distance, victims were "taken from one place to another" within meaning of this section. State v. Dinkel, 49 Or App 917, 621 P2d 626 (1980)

Legislative intent is that there may be separate conviction and sentence for kidnapping only when it is not incidental to another crime, and it may be found not to be incidental if defendant had intent to interfere substantially with victim's personal liberty. State v. Garcia, 288 Or 413, 605 P2d 671 (1980); State v. Thomas, 139 Or App 308, 911 P2d 1237 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

Evidence that defendant concealed victim in bathroom of victim's apartment and held victim at knifepoint so as to prevent victim from responding to police officer's knocks was sufficient to support finding that defendant intended to substantially interfere with victim's personal liberty and that defendant "secretly confined" victim in place where victim was "not likely to be found." State v. Montgomery, 50 Or App 381, 624 P2d 151 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant admitted that during robbery he moved employes and patrons from lounge to another room and kept door locked from five to ten minutes, there was sufficient evidence for rational jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that defendant had requisite intent to kidnap. State v. Rendahl, 58 Or App 688, 650 P2d 128 (1982)

Movement of upper two-thirds of victim's body off driver's seat of automobile did not meet this section's requirement of taking person from one place to another. State v. Jefferson, 81 Or App 479, 726 P2d 392 (1986), Sup Ct review denied

Sentencing of defendants separately on convictions for kidnapping and for escape was proper because determination of separate punishment for kidnapping depended on whether defendant intended to interfere substantially with victim's personal liberty. State v. Allen, 89 Or App 167, 747 P2d 384 (1987), Sup Ct review denied

to Convict Defendant of Kidnapping By Deception, Prosecution Must Prove Following Elements

1) defendant intended to interfere substantially with another's personal liberty; 2) defendant made misrepresentation calculated to induce reliance by victim in order to accomplish interference; and 3) victim relied upon misrepresentation in choosing to accompany defendant from one place to another. State v. Amell, 303 Or 355, 736 P2d 561 (1987)

Act of taking person from one place to another and act of secretly confining person in place where not likely to be found violate two separate "statutory provisions" for proving first degree kidnapping. State v. O'Neall, 115 Or App 62, 836 P2d 758 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

There is no de minimis distance required to constitute taking of person from one place to another. State v. Thomas, 139 Or App 308, 911 P2d 1237 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

Offense is "crime of violence" for purposes of federal career offender sentencing guidelines. U.S. v. Williams, 110 F3d 50 (9th Cir. 1997)

Moving victim from one room to another while committing crime other than kidnapping, without intent to move victim farther or take victim to place of confinement, is insufficient to "substantially" interfere with personal liberty. State v. Wolleat, 338 Or 469, 111 P3d 1131 (2005)

"Liberty" interest this section protects from interference is interest in freedom of movement. State v. Wolleat, 338 Or 469, 111 P3d 1131 (2005)

Moving victim short distance in course of committing other crime does not constitute kidnapping unless defendant intended transporting victim greater distance than was accomplished or transporting victim to place of confinement. State v. Wolleat, 338 Or 469, 111 P3d 1131 (2005); State v. Claborn, 214 Or App 166, 162 P3d 374 (2007), Sup Ct review denied

Whether defendant had intent to substantially interfere with liberty of victim may be determined by considering both movement of victim and confinement of victim. State v. Nguyen, 221 Or App 440, 190 P3d 462 (2008), modified 228 Or App 241, 206 P3d 1219 (2009), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Mejia, 348 Or 1, 227 P3d 1139 (2010)

Asportation element of kidnapping is not met where actual distance victim is moved is not substantial and situation and context are same. State v. Odnorozhenko, 224 Or App 288, 197 P3d 562 (2008)

Determination of whether victim is moved "from one place to another" is situational and contextual and depends on multiple factors, including distance, limitation of personal freedom and increase in isolation. State v. Walch, 346 Or 463, 213 P3d 1201 (2009)

Person does not commit repeated violations of this provision by repeatedly taking victim from one place to another. State v. Gerlach, 255 Or App 614, 300 P3d 193 (2013), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant during course of robbery forced victims at gunpoint from attached garage into bedroom inside house and from one bedroom to another bedroom defendant's conduct was insufficient to establish asportation element of kidnapping under this section. State v. Ibabao, 270 Or App 508, 348 P3d 336 (2015)

Where defendant and victim checked into motel room, motel manager and others knew that defendant and victim had checked into room, defendant attacked victim throughout evening and threatened victim with further violence if victim called for help when visitors knocked on door, defendant secretly confined victim. State v. Vaughan-France, 279 Or App 305, 379 P3d 766 (2016), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Citations

51 OLR 486, 490-492 (1972); 15 WLR 23 (1978)

Notes of Decisions

Trial court properly admitted two handguns found in defendant's possession shortly after alleged commission of crimes of kidnapping and robbery, where crimes were committed with aid of a handgun. State v. Manning, 39 Or App 279, 591 P2d 1195 (1979)

Law Review Citations

51 OLR 428 (1972)

Law Review Citations

51 OLR 427-637 (1972)