You are here: / / ​ THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER REQUIRED REVERSAL OF THE KIDNAPPING CONVICTION A...
,

​ THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER REQUIRED REVERSAL OF THE KIDNAPPING CONVICTION AND THE INCLUSORY-CONCURRENT-COUNT DOCTRINE REQUIRED REVERSAL OF THE FORCIBLE TOUCHING CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the kidnapping and forcible touching convictions determined the doctrine of merger precluded the kidnapping conviction and the forcible touching count was in inclusory concurrent count re: stalking:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of attempted kidnapping in the second degree as a sexually motivated felony … , stalking in the first degree … , and forcible touching … .

Defendant approached the victim while she was walking alone on a street. After a brief verbal encounter, defendant began to follow the victim, grabbing her buttocks and then restraining her before ultimately releasing her and walking away. * * *

The merger doctrine is “a means of effectuating the Legislature’s intent [to effectuate a statutory scheme presenting a range of offenses and penalties measured by the gravity of a defendant’s conduct] by precluding additional kidnapping sanctions for conduct that, while literally falling within the definition of that crime, was not intended to be separately treated as kidnapping,” such as “conduct that, in fairness, should result in a single conviction” … . The “guiding principle” of the merger doctrine inquiry is whether the acts of restraint or abduction were ” ‘so much the part of another substantive crime that the substantive crime could not have been committed without such acts and that independent criminal responsibility may not fairly be attributed to them’ ” … . Where the alleged “abduction and underlying crime are discrete, for example, there is no merger,” but “where there is minimal asportation immediately preceding [the underlying crime], the abduction should not be considered kidnapping” … . Here, defendant’s restraint of the victim was “simultaneous [with] and inseparable from” defendant’s stalking and forcible touching of the victim … , such that “independent criminal responsibility may not fairly be attributed” to the attempted kidnapping … .

Finally, we conclude that, as charged … , it was impossible for defendant to commit stalking in the first degree without, by the same conduct, committing forcible touching, thereby rendering forcible touching an inclusory concurrent count of stalking in the first degree … . People v Woods, 2024 NY Slip Op 03606, fourth Dept 7-3-24

Practice Point: Here is an illustration of the merger doctrine applied to reverse a kidnapping conviction and the inclusory-concurrent-count doctrine applied to reverse a forcible touching conviction.

 

You might also like
PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA), HEALTH CARE WORKERS WHO TREATED COVID-19 PATIENTS WERE IMMUNE FROM CIVIL LIABILITY; THE EDTPA HAS SINCE BEEN REPEALED; THE REPEAL SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY; THE CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING IMPROPER TREATMENT FOR COVID-19 DURING THE TIME THE EDTPA WAS IN EFFECT MUST BE DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S KNOWLEDGE THE ICE AND SNOW WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WAS A RECURRING CONDITION (CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE), AS WELL AS DEFENDANT’S ROLE IN CREATING THE CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT).
ERROR FOR JUDGE TO EFFECTIVELY IGNORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS IN A JURY NOTE AND TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON A LEGAL ISSUE THAT HAD NOT BEEN RAISED BEFORE AND COULD NOT, THEREFORE, HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL IN SUMMATION (FOURTH DEPT)
Leasing Company Which Never Had Possession of the Product (Here a Garbage Truck) and Which Was a Financial Arm of the Purchaser, Not the Manufacturer, of the Product, Entitled to Dismissal of Strict Products Liability Cause of Action/However, a Question of Fact Was Raised Whether the Finance Lessor Was Liable for Failure to Inspect the Product on the Ground It Had Designated an Agent for Inspection on Its Behalf
STATEMENT WHICH WAS NOT IN THE 710.30 NOTICE, AND WHICH PROVIDED EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DOMINION AND CONTROL OF THE RESIDENCE WHERE DRUGS WERE FOUND, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE.
DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED, WIFE SIGNED FOR HUSBAND WHO WAS PRESENT, AT MOST ONLY THE ONE SIGNATURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN STRUCK, NOT THE ENTIRE PAGE OF SIGNATURES (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYEE OF THE OWNER OF THE TRUCK WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE WAS USING THE TRUCK WITH THE COMPANY’S PERMISSION, RENDERING THE COMPANY LIABLE PURSUANT TO VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 388 (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF LANDLORD HAD AN ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW FOR AN ALLEGED BREACH OF THE LEASE BY THE TENANT; PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED LOSS OF GOODWILL WAS NOT APPLICABLE; THE BALANCE OF EQUITIES FAVORED THE TENANT; THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT WARRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

BECAUSE DEFENDANT’S 20-YEAR-OLD OUT-OF-STATE CONVICTION DID NOT INVOLVE... A TEACHER’S ALLEGED STATEMENT TO THE PLAINTIFF THAT HE WAS AWARE OF THE...