Restricted movement during bank robbery was abduction

Where appellant ordered three bank employees to lie on the floor during the course of his robbery, this restriction of movement was sufficient to support independent charges of, and convictions for, abduction.

Restricting the employees’ movements was not an element of the robbery. Instead, appellant issued his orders to help him escape.

Overview

Appellant entered a bank wearing a mask and sunglasses. Two bank employee saw him. One whispered to the other to press the silent alarm. This drew appellant’s attention. He brandished a gun, ordered them to get down on the floor and not to move for five minutes or he would kill them.

Appellant went to a teller who was handling a large amount of cash. Appellant took it, ordered the teller to the floor and told him to count to a certain number (the teller could not remember the number) and that if he got up ahead of time, appellant would kill him.

None of the bank employees attempted to impede appellant in any way or to retrieve the money.

Eventually, appellant was apprehended. He was convicted of charges related to the bank robbery. He was also convicted of three counts of abduction and possessing a weapon while committing the abductions.

Only the abduction-related convictions have been appealed. Appellant argues the trial court should have granted his motion to strike those charges because restricting the employees’ movements was incidental to the robbery and were not independent offenses.

Abduction

“Code § 18.2-47(A) provides that ‘[a]ny person who, by force, intimidation or deception, and without legal justification or excuse, seizes, takes, transports, detains or secretes another person with the intent to deprive such other person of his personal liberty or to withhold or conceal him from any person, authority or institution lawfully entitled to his charge, shall be deemed guilty of abduction.’

“Standing alone, a criminal ordering his victims to the ground at gunpoint and ordering that they remain there for a specified period of time under penalty of death satisfies all of the elements found in Code § 18.2-47.”Independent offense

“Appellant, while acknowledging he placed significant restrictions on the victims’ liberty, argues that the detentions and restrictions on liberty he imposed did not stand alone; rather, they were inherent in the underlying robbery.

“In enacting ‘the abduction statute the General Assembly did not intend to make the kind of restraint which is an intrinsic element of crimes such as rape, robbery, and assault a criminal act, punishable as a separate offense.’ …

“If the restriction on liberty imposed upon a victim is inherent in one of the listed underlying crimes, there is no violation of the abduction statute.”

In this case, the “restriction on liberty” was not inherent to the robbery. “The elements of robbery are longstanding and familiar. Robbery requires the taking of the personal property of another, from his person or in his presence, by means of threat, force or intimidation with the intention to permanently deprive the person of that property. …

“Particularly important here, neither escape nor other attempts to avoid detection or capture are elements of robbery. …

“Threatening Holcomb with a gun, appellant demanded that Holcomb give him the bank’s money. As one of the bank’s tellers, Holcomb had a right of possession superior to appellant. Because of appellant’s threatening conduct, Holcomb surrendered the money. Appellant evinced his intention to permanently deprive Holcomb of the money through his conduct in general and the specific act of placing the money in the front of his pants.

“Consequently, as soon as appellant tucked the money into his waistband, all of the elements of robbery had been satisfied and the crime was completed. If appellant had taken no further action and simply had waited for the police to arrive, he would have been guilty of robbery.

“Appellant, of course, did take additional action. Having already taken the money, appellant ordered Holcomb, Hay, and Bannister to the floor and commanded them to stay there for a definite period. Appellant argues that this was part of the robbery. We disagree.

“Unlike cases in which theft victims have attempted to recover the property that had just been seized by a thief, none of the bank employees made any attempt to repossess the money or otherwise interfere with appellant’s movements or continued possession of the money. This distinguishes this case from instances where violence used to subdue victims who attempt to reassert possession or otherwise interfere with the thief’s custody of the stolen property has been deemed to be part of a robbery. …

“Accordingly, his commands to the bank employees to lie on the floor and remain there were extraneous to and not in support of his efforts to take the money, and thus, occurred after the robbery had been completed. …

“His orders and threats were made to facilitate his escape and to allow him to avoid detection and capture. As noted above, escape is not an element of robbery.”

Affirmed.

Chastang v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1285-18-3, April 21, 2020. CAV (Russell) from Roanoke City Cir. Ct. (Carson) Dirk B. Padgett for appellant, Leah A. Darron for appellee. VLW 020-7-080, 13 pp. Unpublished.