Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Burnell McLEOD, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered April 14, 2005, convicting him of murder in the second degree, burglary in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of, inter alia, murder in the second degree pursuant to Penal Law § 125.25(3) predicated upon kidnapping. The defendant's contention that the merger doctrine operated to preclude that conviction because the kidnapping charge on which it was based merged with the robbery charge of which he was acquitted (see People v. Gonzalez, 80 N.Y.2d 146, 589 N.Y.S.2d 833, 603 N.E.2d 938), is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ). In any event, the abduction of the victim at gunpoint constituted the discrete crime of kidnapping in the second degree, the elements of which were completed before the acts underlying the robbery charge took place. Moreover, the confinement in this case continued past the completion of the acts underlying the robbery charge (see People v. Cartagena, 287 A.D.2d 515, 731 N.Y.S.2d 469; People v. Armstrong, 250 A.D.2d 618, 673 N.Y.S.2d 154). Under the circumstances, the restraint was not a minimal intrusion necessary and integral to the robbery, since the defendant could have effectuated a robbery without detaining the victim, and thus, the merger doctrine was inapplicable (see People v. Balde, 260 A.D.2d 579, 690 N.Y.S.2d 62).
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 08, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)