Sipplen v. State

The trial court harmlessly erred in charging the jury that only the slightest movement could support the asportation element of the kidnapping offense, since the evidence demonstrated that asportation occurred here under the four factors set forth in Garza v. State, 284 Ga. 696 2008.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

After a jury trial, William Sipplen, Sr., was convicted of kidnapping and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He appeals, contending that the evidence was insufficient to authorize his convictions and the trial court erroneously charged the jury on the kidnapping offense. We hold that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions and to render harmless any error in the jury charge. Accordingly, we affirm. 1. When an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Emphasis in original. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307, 319 III B 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979.

So viewed, the evidence showed that in the afternoon of May 7, 2007, a Pepsi-Cola truck driver was leaving a Wal-mart parking lot after having refilled vending machines at the store. A purple PT Cruiser driven by Sipplen pulled out of the parking lot in front of the truck. Shortly beforehand, a man later identified as Kenneth Howard had gotten out of the PT Cruiser. Howard ran next to the truck, jumped inside, and pointed a gun at the truck driver. Howard told the truck driver “to drive and where to turn.” He also told the truck driver that there were “some people behind them that wasn’t going to be happy if they couldn’t get no money.” The truck driver told Howard that he did not have the combination to the truck’s safe.

Sipplen v. State

The trial court harmlessly erred in charging the jury that only the slightest movement could support the asportation element of the kidnapping offense, since the evidence demonstrated that asportation occurred here under the four factors set forth in Garza v. State, 284 Ga. 696 2008.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report