Is amending charges possible?
Is 'confining' met? ITS, by condition of Mr S when found after fire - evd of taping and/or binding.
What about 'intent to hold or detain for ransom or reward.'
If Mr S had said in phone contact(s), texts, 'Bring $*advertiser censored* to my home, so he will let us go' wd/h/bn better evd of DDW's 'intent to hold for ransom or reward.'
That #@!~& may claim, Mr S invited DDW to go to auction w him - to help find deals on welding equipment.
So, no intent to collect ransom or reward. What about "otherwise." Hmmm.
"
Whoever shall be guilty of, or of aiding or abetting in, seizing, confining, inveigling, enticing, decoying, kidnapping, abducting, concealing, or carrying away any individual by any means whatsoever,
and holding or detaining, or with the intent to hold or detain, such individual for ransom or reward or otherwise,.... shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not more than 30 years...." *
JM2cts, could be all wrong.
____________________________________________________________________________________
* Current through laws in effect as of April 23, 2015 and through DC Act 20-592. Chapter 20. Kidnapping.
D.C. Code § 22-2001 (2015) § 22-2001. Definition and penalty; conspiracy.
Following above excerpt: ".... This section shall be held to have been violated if either the seizing, confining, inveigling, enticing, decoying, kidnapping, abducting, concealing, carrying away, holding, or detaining occurs in the District of Columbia. If 2 or more individuals enter into any agreement or conspiracy to do any act or acts which would constitute a violation of the provisions of this section, and 1 or more of such individuals do any act to effect the object of such agreement or conspiracy, each such individual shall be deemed to have violated the provisions of this section. [fine]." bbm
"A. Kidnapping Kidnapping includes the seizing, confining, or detention of another. D.C.Code § 22-2101 (1989). "The involuntary nature of the seizure and detention is the essence of the crime of kidnapping." Head v. United States, 451 A.2d 615, 624 (D.C. 1982) (citing cases).
Butler was convicted of kidnapping both King and Queen. He now contends that there was insufficient evidence that either King or Queen was involuntarily transported, and that his conviction must therefore be reversed. This contention is without merit because "[a]sportation is not an essential element of the kidnapping statute." Catlett v. United States, 545 A.2d 1202, 1215 n. 29 (D.C.1988), (citation omitted), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1017, 109 S.Ct. 814, 102 L.Ed.2d 803 (1989).[15]" bbm. http://law.justia.com/cases/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/1992/89-cf-1149-5.html
IOW, moving the vic is not necessary.