Buggs test in Kansas

2020The Richmond court held the "confinement of the victim facilitated the commission of the respective crimes" and the Buggs test had been satisfied. 250 Kan. at 378 .

2020The Richmond court held the "confinement of the victim facilitated the commission of the respective crimes" and the Buggs test had been satisfied. 250 Kan. at 378 .

2020After setting forth the Buggs test, our Supreme Court first rejected the defendant's argument that the short distance he had removed the victim was merely incidental to his crimes. 310 Kan. at 1032, 453 P.3d at 1177 .

2020After setting forth the Buggs test, our Supreme Court first rejected the defendant's argument that the short distance he had removed the victim was merely incidental to his crimes. 310 Kan. at 1032, 453 P.3d at 1177 .

2003The Supreme Court rejected this argument, specifically discussing under the Buggs standard whether the evidence proved a completed taking from the store and a completed confinement in defendant’s car. 231 Kan. at 670-71 .

2003The Supreme Court rejected this argument, specifically discussing under the Buggs standard whether the evidence proved a completed taking from the store and a completed confinement in defendant’s car. 231 Kan. at 670-71 .

2024The State submits that the aggravated kidnapping conviction is valid under the "same-elements" test in State v. Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453, 475 , 133 P.3d 48 (2006), because aggravated domestic battery and aggravated kidnapping do not have the same elements.

2024The State submits that the aggravated kidnapping conviction is valid under the "same-elements" test in State v. Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453, 475 , 133 P.3d 48 (2006), because aggravated domestic battery and aggravated kidnapping do not have the same elements.

2020In State v. Chears, 231 Kan. 161, 164 , 643 P.3d 154 (1982), our Supreme Court affirmed Chears' kidnapping conviction based on the fact he moved the victim from the living room to a bedroom to sodomize her, "ensur[ing] that there would be but one witness," finding "the movement was sufficient to constitute kidnapping under the Buggs test." But Chears is distinguishable because removing the victim from the living room to the bedroom prevented Chears' accomplices and the victim's husband and daughter from seeing what was happening and lessened the chance they would attempt to interfere. 231 Kan.

2020In State v. Chears, 231 Kan. 161, 164 , 643 P.3d 154 (1982), our Supreme Court affirmed Chears' kidnapping conviction based on the fact he moved the victim from the living room to a bedroom to sodomize her, "ensur[ing] that there would be but one witness," finding "the movement was sufficient to constitute kidnapping under the Buggs test." But Chears is distinguishable because removing the victim from the living room to the bedroom prevented Chears' accomplices and the victim's husband and daughter from seeing what was happening and lessened the chance they would attempt to interfere. 231 Kan.

2009The New York court in People v. Lombardi, 20 N.Y.2d 266, 270 , 282 N.Y.S.2d 519 , 229 N.E.2d 206 (1967), noted: “[T]he direction of the criminal law has been to limit the scope of the kidnapping statute, with its very substantially more severe penal consequences, to true kidnapping situations and not to apply it to crimes which are essentially robbeiy, rape or assault and in which some confinement or asportation occurs as a subsidiary incident.” The California court, in People v. Daniels, 71 Cal. 2d 1119, 1138 , 80 Cal. Rptr. 897 , 459 P.2d 225 (1969), cited the American Law *464 Institute’s c

2009The New York court in People v. Lombardi, 20 N.Y.2d 266, 270 , 282 N.Y.S.2d 519 , 229 N.E.2d 206 (1967), noted: “[T]he direction of the criminal law has been to limit the scope of the kidnapping statute, with its very substantially more severe penal consequences, to true kidnapping situations and not to apply it to crimes which are essentially robbeiy, rape or assault and in which some confinement or asportation occurs as a subsidiary incident.” The California court, in People v. Daniels, 71 Cal. 2d 1119, 1138 , 80 Cal. Rptr. 897 , 459 P.2d 225 (1969), cited the American Law *464 Institute’s c

2009The New York court in People v. Lombardi, 20 N.Y.2d 266, 270 , 282 N.Y.S.2d 519 , 229 N.E.2d 206 (1967), noted: “[T]he direction of the criminal law has been to limit the scope of the kidnapping statute, with its very substantially more severe penal consequences, to true kidnapping situations and not to apply it to crimes which are essentially robbeiy, rape or assault and in which some confinement or asportation occurs as a subsidiary incident.” The California court, in People v. Daniels, 71 Cal. 2d 1119, 1138 , 80 Cal. Rptr. 897 , 459 P.2d 225 (1969), cited the American Law *464 Institute’s c

2009The New York court in People v. Lombardi, 20 N.Y.2d 266, 270 , 282 N.Y.S.2d 519 , 229 N.E.2d 206 (1967), noted: “[T]he direction of the criminal law has been to limit the scope of the kidnapping statute, with its very substantially more severe penal consequences, to true kidnapping situations and not to apply it to crimes which are essentially robbeiy, rape or assault and in which some confinement or asportation occurs as a subsidiary incident.” The California court, in People v. Daniels, 71 Cal. 2d 1119, 1138 , 80 Cal. Rptr. 897 , 459 P.2d 225 (1969), cited the American Law *464 Institute’s c

2003See also State v. Fisher, 257 Kan. 65, 75 , 891 P.2d 1065 (1995) (‘Buggs is the leading Kansas case which discusses in depth the crime of kidnapping and the elements necessary to establish the offense where a taking or confinement occurs to facilitate the commission of another crime.’). *938 “Although the State is correct that several of the other later cases cited by Burden also arose out of 21-3420(b) kidnappings rather than 21-3420(c) kidnappings like this one, see, e.g., Fisher, 257 Kan. at 74-78 ; State v. Hays, 256 Kan. 48, 61-63 , 883 P.2d 1093 (1994), it fails to recognize that Buggs a

2003See also State v. Fisher, 257 Kan. 65, 75 , 891 P.2d 1065 (1995) (‘Buggs is the leading Kansas case which discusses in depth the crime of kidnapping and the elements necessary to establish the offense where a taking or confinement occurs to facilitate the commission of another crime.’). *938 “Although the State is correct that several of the other later cases cited by Burden also arose out of 21-3420(b) kidnappings rather than 21-3420(c) kidnappings like this one, see, e.g., Fisher, 257 Kan. at 74-78 ; State v. Hays, 256 Kan. 48, 61-63 , 883 P.2d 1093 (1994), it fails to recognize that Buggs a

1994In State v. Ransom, 239 Kan. 594 , 722 P.2d 540 (1986), and State v. Cabral, 228 Kan. 741 , 619 P.2d 1163 (1980), upon which the defendant relies, this court found the factual situations insufficient to satisfy the Buggs test.

1994In State v. Ransom, 239 Kan. 594 , 722 P.2d 540 (1986), and State v. Cabral, 228 Kan. 741 , 619 P.2d 1163 (1980), upon which the defendant relies, this court found the factual situations insufficient to satisfy the Buggs test.

1994In State v. Ransom, 239 Kan. 594 , 722 P.2d 540 (1986), and State v. Cabral, 228 Kan. 741 , 619 P.2d 1163 (1980), upon which the defendant relies, this court found the factual situations insufficient to satisfy the Buggs test.

1994In State v. Ransom, 239 Kan. 594 , 722 P.2d 540 (1986), and State v. Cabral, 228 Kan. 741 , 619 P.2d 1163 (1980), upon which the defendant relies, this court found the factual situations insufficient to satisfy the Buggs test.

1990In State v. Nelson, 223 Kan. 572, 573-74 , 575 P.2d 547 (1978), this court approved the use of the pattern instruction under similar circumstances.

1990In State v. Nelson, 223 Kan. 572, 573-74 , 575 P.2d 547 (1978), this court approved the use of the pattern instruction under similar circumstances.