Woodson v. State, 544 S.E.2d 431 (Ga. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
Woodson v. State, 544 S.E.2d 431 (Ga. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“an abduction or taking by inducement, persuasion, or fraud can also support a finding of asportation.”
75 citation events (75 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Griffin v. State (ga, 2007-06-25)
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Griffin v. State (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
Ga. · 2007 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
an abduction or taking by inducement, persuasion, or fraud can also support a finding of asportation.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mercer v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Id. at 558 (footnote omitted). 190 Ga. App. 264 ( 378 SE2d 893 ) (1989), overruled in part on other grounds, Drinkard v. Walker, 281 Ga. 211, 217, n. 38 ( 636 SE2d 530 ) (2006).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Leppla v. State (5×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
NOTES [1] Kurtz, Criminal Offenses and Defenses in Georgia (2004 ed.), p. 654. [2] See LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law, § 18.1(b) (2nd ed., 2003); Anno., Seizure or Detention for Purpose of Committing Rape, Robbery, or Other Offense as Constituting Separate Crime of Kidnapping, 39 A.L.R.5th 283 (1996). [3] LaFave, supra, citing Model Penal Code § 212.1. [4] Id. [5] See 39 A.L.R.5th 283 , supra. [6] See id. [7] 132 Ga.App. 399 , 208 S.E.2d 183 (1974). [8] Id. at 401-402 (2), 208 S.E.2d 183 . [9] 190 Ga.App. 264 , 378 S.E.2d 893 (1989). [10] Id. at 265 (1), 378 S.E.2d 893 . [11] Id. at 266 , …
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wade v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
See Jackson, supra; OCGA § 16-5-40 (a); Woodson v. State, 273 Ga. 557, 558 ( 544 SE2d 431 ) (2001).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Phillips v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Phipps and Mikell, JJ, concur. 1 Woodson v. State, 273 Ga. 557, 558 ( 544 SE2d 431 ) (2001).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sharp v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Ga. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Woodson v. State, 273 Ga. 557, 558, n. 1 ( 544 SE2d 431 ) (2001).
examined Cited "see" Flores v. State (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ga. Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woodson v. State, 273 Ga. 557, 558 ( 544 SE2d 431 ) (2001).
discussed Cited "see" Gilbert v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woodson v. State, 273 Ga. 557, 558 ( 544 SE2d 431 ) (2001) (victim’s movement from bathroom to bedroom at defendant’s threatening command prior to rape was sufficient to establish the asportation element of kidnapping); Griggs v. State, 264 Ga. App. 636, 638 ( 592 SE2d 168 ) (2003) (evidence that defendant dragged victim around room, picked her up, pushed her down and threw her bodily to the ground sufficient to support kidnapping conviction).
discussed Cited "see" Maddox v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woodson v. State, 273 Ga. 557, 558 ( 544 SE2d 431 ) (2001) (forced movement of victim from bathroom to bedroom prior to rape was sufficient to establish *582 the asportation element of kidnapping).
discussed Cited "see" Hickey v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
OCGA § 16-5-40; see Woodson v. State, 273 Ga. 557 ( 544 SE2d 431 ) (2001).
examined Cited "see" Smith v. State (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ga. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
NOTES [1] See State v. Burgess, 263 Ga. 143, 144-145 (1), 429 S.E.2d 252 (1993). [2] (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Reeves v. State, 233 Ga.App. 802, 805 (2), 505 S.E.2d 540 (1998). [3] Ricks v. State, 178 Ga.App. 98, 101 (4), 341 S.E.2d 895 (1986). [4] Gould v. State, 239 Ga.App. 312, 313 (2), 521 S.E.2d 365 (1999); see OCGA § 16-4-1. [5] See Ellis v. State, 211 Ga.App. 605, 608 (2), 440 S.E.2d 235 (1994) (forcible movement of victim from her den to her bedroom was sufficient to show asportation). [6] See OCGA § 16-7-20. [7] Bigsby v. State, 210 Ga.App. 696, 697 (1), 436 S.E.2d 817 (1…
examined Cited "see, e.g." Garza v. State (7×)
Ga. · 2008 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Woodson v. State, 273 Ga. 557 ( 544 SE2d 431 ) (2001) (evidence of asportation sufficient where victim forced from one room to another in course of attempted rape); Scott v. State, 288 Ga. App. 738 (1) (b) ( 655 SE2d 326 ) (2007) (evidence of asportation sufficient where victim dragged ten feet from bus stop to bushes in course of robbery); Phillips v. State, 259 Ga. App. 331 (1) ( 577 SE2d 25 ) (2003) (evidence of asportation sufficient where victim grabbed and forced six to eight feet into store in course of armed robbery).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Griggs v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Woodson v. State, 273 Ga. 557, 558, n. 1 ( 544 SE2d 431 ) (2001).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Woodson
v.
the State
S00G0864.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Mar 19, 2001.
544 S.E.2d 431
Stephen T. Smith, for appellant., Robert E. Keller, District Attorney, Bonnie K. Smith, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Hines.
Cited by 24 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 73%
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Georgia (1)
Hines, Justice.

We granted certiorari in Woodson v. State, 242 Ga. App. 67 (530 SE2d 2) (2000), to review the determination of the Court of Appeals that asportation was shown in this case, sufficient to authorize a conviction for kidnapping. Finding that asportation was shown, we affirm.

The victim opened her apartment door to find Woodson, who was wearing a mask and wielding a knife. She backed away from the door and Woodson pursued her into various rooms of the apartment. The victim went into the bedroom where Woodson pulled her to the floor and attempted to rape her. Further facts of the case are detailed in the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

Woodson contends that the State did not show any evidence of[*558] asportation of the victim, a necessary element of kidnapping. “A person commits the offense of kidnapping when he abducts or steals away any person without lawful authority or warrant and holds such person against his will.” OCGA § 16-5-40 (a). The Court of Appeals found that asportation was shown, citing Harshaw v. State, 222 Ga. App. 385, 386 (1) (474 SE2d 226) (1996), and Love v. State, 190 Ga. App. 264-265 (1) (378 SE2d 893) (1989), as support for the statement that because “Woodson shoved and pulled the victim to the floor and struggled with her, the evidence also supported the kidnapping conviction.” Woodson, supra at 69 (1).

Although the struggle in Harshaw showed that the defendant held the victim against her will, the Court in that opinion noted that “[a]n abduction or taking by inducement, persuasion, or fraud can also support a finding of asportation.” Harshaw, supra. There the defendant’s deceptive offer to show the victim a shortcut satisfied the statutory requirement that the defendant must abduct or steal away the victim. In Love, asportation was shown by the defendant physically moving the victim from a seated position on a concrete block to a different location, the dirt behind the concrete block. Love, supra. Here, shoving the victim, without moving her to a different location, was not the evidence that satisfied the requirement of asportation, nor was pulling her to the floor at a single location. [1]

The victim testified that she fled to the bathroom, then exited it, when Woodson, brandishing the knife, told her to go into “this room.” In another portion of her testimony, it is clear that after the victim left the bathroom, the pair went to the bedroom, where their last encounter occurred. [2] Consequently, the evidence authorized the jury to infer that she went from one room to another in response to Wood-son’s threatening command, which satisfies OCGA § 16-5-40 (a)’s requirement of asportation. See Haynes v. State, 249 Ga. 119 (1) (288 SE2d 185) (1982). [3]

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. [*559] Decided March 19, 2001. Stephen T. Smith, for appellant. Robert E. Keller, District Attorney, Bonnie K. Smith, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
1

To the extent that Harshaw v. State, supra, stands for the proposition that shoving the victim without moving her to a different location, or struggling with the victim, is evidence of asportation, it is overruled.

2

The victim testified with the aid of a diagram of the apartment, apparently marking on it. The diagram is not in the record.

3

In a supplemental brief to this Court, Woodson argues that the victim, who could neither speak nor hear, could not sense being “told” anything, and notes that her testimony was through an interpreter. It was for the jury to decide the effect of the victim’s impairment and the interpreter’s involvement. Hensley v. State, 228 Ga. 501, 501-502 (1) (186 SE2d 729) (1972).