{
  "id": 11356509,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KUWSH ABDULLAH MUHAMMAD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Muhammad",
  "decision_date": "2001-09-18",
  "docket_number": "No. COA00-1070",
  "first_page": "292",
  "last_page": "296",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "146 N.C. App. 292"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "548 S.E.2d 828",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "No. COA00-471"
        },
        {
          "page": "832"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 N.C. App. 134",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11436116
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "No. COA00-471"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/145/0134-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "415 S.E.2d 555",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "sustaining the kidnapping conviction where the defendant bound the victim's hands and feet"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "331 N.C. 199",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2497633
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "sustaining the kidnapping conviction where the defendant bound the victim's hands and feet"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/331/0199-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 S.E.2d 439",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "446"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "304 N.C. 93",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565336
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/304/0093-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "495 S.E.2d 367",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "369"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "347 N.C. 555",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        551295
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "559"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/347/0555-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "243 S.E.2d 338",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 6,
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "351"
        },
        {
          "page": "351"
        },
        {
          "page": "352"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "294 N.C. 503",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574036
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "523"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/294/0503-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-87.1",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-39",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 482,
    "char_count": 8746,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.76,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6459019783400203e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6918548147015521
    },
    "sha256": "1cfd231d48dca8e25a6137a3680b0440fb9e30517fc4edc48019ca85b5c46e09",
    "simhash": "1:296bc679642f24ca",
    "word_count": 1441
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:14:58.205856+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges EAGLES and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KUWSH ABDULLAH MUHAMMAD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "THOMAS, Judge.\nDefendant, Kuwsh Abdullah Muhammad, was found guilty in a jury trial of common law robbery and second-degree kidnapping. He appeals the kidnapping conviction, arguing that it violates the prohibition against double jeopardy guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and should have been vacated by the trial court.\nWe disagree and find no error.\nThe state\u2019s evidence tended to show the following: Defendant entered a Pizza Hut in Hillsborough, North Carolina, through a back door on 11 February 1999. Jeremiah Cash, an employee, was in the rear of the building washing dishes. Defendant approached Cash from behind, put an arm around Cash\u2019s throat, and hit him three times in the side. The two men wrestled and fell to the floor where the struggle continued until defendant pointed what appeared to be a gun at Cash\u2019s head and told him to get up.\nCash complied. When Cash stood back up, however, defendant again grabbed him around the neck. Defendant, pointing the gun at Cash\u2019s head, forced Cash to walk to the front of the restaurant where restaurant manager Fred McQuaig was standing. Upon seeing the two men, McQuaig said repeatedly, \u201cPlease don\u2019t hurt him.\u201d McQuaig then took money from the safe and cash register and handed it to defendant. After getting the money, defendant released Cash and ran out the back door.\nLaw enforcement officials later determined that the gun used by defendant was a cap gun.\nDefendant presented no evidence at his trial during the 18 April 2000 session of Orange County Superior Court, and was convicted of both second-degree kidnapping and common law robbery. He moved for the kidnapping conviction to be vacated based on double jeopardy grounds. The trial court denied the motion and sentenced defendant to consecutive terms in the North Carolina Department of Corrections of twenty-nine to forty-four months for second-degree kidnapping and fifteen to eighteen months for common law robbery.\nBy defendant\u2019s only assignment of error, he argues that the trial court erred in not vacating the second-degree kidnapping conviction because there was insufficient evidence of restraint and removal separate and apart from that which is inherent in common law robbery. Therefore, he contends, the kidnapping conviction violates the double jeopardy guarantees of the Fifth Amendment. We disagree.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-39(a) (1999) provides in pertinent part that a person is guilty of kidnapping if he:\nshall unlawfully confine, restrain, or remove from one place to another, any other person 16 years of age or over without the consent of such person ... if such confinement, restraint or removal is for the purpose of:\n(2) Facilitating the commission of any felony or facilitating flight of any person following the commission of a felony. . . .\nCommon law robbery is the taking of personal property of another by violence or placing the person in fear. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-87.1.\nThe Double Jeopardy Clause, found in the Fifth Amendment and enforceable against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, ensures against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal or conviction, and against multiple punishments for the same offense. Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 491 (6th ed. 1990).\nOur Supreme Court in State v. Fulcher held that the General Assembly did not intend the element of restraint inherent in some felonies to also constitute kidnapping. Fulcher, 294 N.C. 503, 523, 243 S.E.2d 338, 351 (1978). \u201cIt is self-evident that some crimes {e.g., forcible rape, armed robbery) cannot be committed without some restraint of the victim.\u201d Id. The Fulcher Court further stated that to hold otherwise would violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. See id.\nHowever, the Court also observed that it is well-established that two or more criminal offenses may arise from the same course of action. Id. at 523, 243 S.E.2d at 351. Thus, a conviction for kidnapping does not violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy where the restraint is used to facilitate the commission of another felony, provided the restraint is a separate, complete act, independent of and apart from the other felony. Id. at 524, 243 S.E.2d at 352.\nCases since Fulcher have held that the key question is whether the kidnapping charge is supported by evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that the necessary restraint for kidnapping exposed the victim to greater danger than that inherent in the underlying felony itself. See State v. Beatty, 347 N.C. 555, 559, 495 S.E.2d 367, 369 (1998). Evidence that a defendant increased the victim\u2019s helplessness and vulnerability beyond what was necessary to enable the robbery or rape is sufficient to support a kidnapping charge. Id.\nDefendant here contends the kidnapping conviction is improper because Cash was not exposed to greater danger than that which was necessary to commit the robbery, and cites State v. Irwin, 304 N.C. 93, 282 S.E.2d 439 (1981), as support for his position. In Irwin, the Court held that there was no separate kidnapping offense because forcing the armed robbery victim to walk a short distance to or away from a cash register did not subject the victim to the kind of danger and abuse our kidnapping statute was designed to prevent. The Court found that the removal of the victim was a mere technical asportation inherent in the offense of robbery. See id. at 103, 282 S.E.2d at 446.\nThe evidence in Irwin, however, was only that the defendant forced an employee at knife point to walk to the back of the store in order to obtain money and prescription drugs. Defendant in the present case did not simply hold Cash at gun point and force him to walk to the cash register. Defendant placed Cash in a choke hold, hit him in the side three times, wrestled with Cash on the floor, grabbed Cash again around the throat, pointed a gun at his head and marched him to the front of the store. Taken together, these actions constituted restraint beyond what was necessary for the commission of common law robbery. See Beatty, 347 N.C. 555, 495 S.E.2d 367 (holding that there was no kidnapping where the victim was forced to go inside the restaurant and held at gunpoint during the robbery but was not harmed or otherwise moved; but that there was a kidnapping where a second victim was forced to lie on the floor with his wrists and mouth bound with duct tape and then kicked twice in the back); State v. Pigott, 331 N.C. 199, 415 S.E.2d 555 (1992) (sustaining the kidnapping conviction where the defendant bound the victim\u2019s hands and feet); and Fulcher, 294 N.C. 503, 243 S.E.2d 338 (upholding the kidnapping conviction where the defendant bound both rape victims\u2019 hands).\nWe distinguish State v. Featherson, 145 N.C. App. 134, 548 S.E.2d 828 (Jul. 17, 2001) (No. COA00-471), which held that there was no kidnapping where the robbers bound the victim, who was already in the same room as them, loosely with duct tape to the defendant, \u201cin such a manner as to allow them to escape quickly.\u201d Id. at 139, 548 S.E.2d at 832.\nIn the instant case, defendant did substantially more than just force Cash to walk from one part of the restaurant to another. Accordingly, we hold that there was sufficient evidence of restraint and removal separate and apart from that which is inherent in common law robbery. The trial court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motion to vacate the conviction of second-degree kidnapping.\nNO ERROR.\nJudges EAGLES and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "THOMAS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Jill B. Hickey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "James E. Williams, Jr., Public Defender, by LaFonda R. Jones, Assistant Public Defender, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KUWSH ABDULLAH MUHAMMAD\nNo. COA00-1070\n(Filed 18 September 2001)\nConstitutional Law\u2014 double jeopardy \u2014 robbery and kidnapping \u2014 victim\u2019s greater danger\nThe trial court did not err in a prosecution for common law robbery and second-degree kidnapping by denying defendant\u2019s motion to vacate the second-degree kidnapping conviction on the ground of double jeopardy where defendant placed the victim in a choke hold, hit him in the side three times, wrestled with him on the floor, grabbed him around the throat, and marched him to the front of the store with a gun to his head. Defendant did substantially more than force the victim to walk from one part of the restaurant to another and there was sufficient evidence of restraint and removal separate and apart from that which is inherent in common law robbery.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 18 April 2000 by Judge David Q. LaBarre in Orange County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 August 2001.\nMichael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Jill B. Hickey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nJames E. Williams, Jr., Public Defender, by LaFonda R. Jones, Assistant Public Defender, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0292-01",
  "first_page_order": 324,
  "last_page_order": 328
}
