People v. Ludders, 26 N.Y.2d 607 (1970)

The kidnapping statute should be limited to ‘true kidnapping’ situations and not applied to crimes that are essentially robbery, rape, or assault, where confinement or asportation is a subsidiary incident.

Summary

Defendant, a pharmacist and travel agent, was convicted of kidnapping, attempted rape, and assault. He had drugged three young women under the guise of “nail-hardening pills” (actually barbiturates) and transported them to a motel in Queens where he attempted sexual assault. The Court of Appeals reversed the kidnapping convictions, holding that the asportation was merely incidental to the attempted rape and assault. The court also ordered a new trial on the remaining charges due to prejudicial comments made by the prosecutor during trial and summation.

Facts

The defendant, a pharmacist and travel agent, hired three young women under the pretense of working at his travel agency. He induced each woman to take pills he claimed were “nail-hardening pills” before business parties or social affairs. These pills contained barbiturates, causing drowsiness, dizziness, and impaired muscular coordination. The defendant then drove the women to a motel in Queens, where he attempted to rape one and made sexual advances towards the others. Afterwards, he drove them back home. A policewoman investigating the case was also offered the pills; she seized them, leading to the defendant’s arrest. The pills’ contents and their effects matched the reactions of the other women.

Procedural History

The defendant was indicted on multiple charges including kidnapping, attempted rape, and assault. He was convicted on all counts and sentenced to a substantial prison term. The defendant appealed the conviction to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the kidnapping convictions and ordered a new trial on the remaining charges.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the defendant’s actions constituted kidnapping under Penal Law § 1250, subd. 1, considering the asportation was incidental to the crimes of attempted rape and assault.

2. Whether the prosecutor’s comments during the trial and summation were so prejudicial and inflammatory as to warrant a new trial on the attempted rape and assault charges.

Holding

1. No, because the asportation of the victims was merely incidental to the primary crimes of attempted rape and assault. The kidnapping statute should be limited to “true kidnapping” scenarios and not applied where confinement or asportation is subsidiary to another crime.

2. Yes, because the prosecutor’s comments were excessively prejudicial and inflammatory, denying the defendant a fair trial on the attempted rape and assault charges.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that the kidnapping statute should not be applied to situations where the confinement or asportation is merely incidental to other crimes such as robbery, rape, or assault. The court relied on People v. Levy (15 N.Y.2d 159), which held that the detention or asportation of a victim for a relatively short time as an incident to robbery should not normally be prosecuted as kidnapping. The court noted that the Legislature has since addressed this issue by prescribing definite time periods of detention in cases other than classic kidnapping for ransom. The court also found that the prosecutor’s comments during the trial and summation were excessively prejudicial. The prosecutor made personal attacks on defense counsel and used inflammatory language when describing the defendant’s actions, which exceeded the fair limits of advocacy and prejudiced the defendant’s right to a fair trial. For example, the prosecutor argued to the jury that they were “not here to determine” if defendant’s acts “were damnable, diabolical, destructive, death dealing” and whether the defense “is born of desperation and despair, filled with deceit, devoid of decency, devoid of truth, foul and vile”. The court determined that these comments, along with others, warranted a new trial on the attempted rape and assault charges. The court instructed that at the new trial, the jury should be instructed to consider each crime separately on its own merits.