Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Sixteen-year-old K.B., the alleged victim, had been Ds friend since her childhood. During their long friendship, they communicated daily. They 'went for rides' and D often took K.B. shopping. At 11:30 p.m., K.B. and her friend, Wakeen Conover, walked towards Conover's vehicle, which was parked in front of K.B.'s sister's house. K.B. got into the passenger seat of the vehicle. D suddenly appeared and got into the driver's seat, Conover ran back into the house. K.B. attempted to jump out of the vehicle, but was restrained by D. D drove the vehicle away at approximately thirty-five to forty miles per hour while K.B.'s feet were scraping along the street. K.B.'s brother chased D in his vehicle. The brother's vehicle reached a speed of up to fifty-five miles per hour. D's vehicle made a 'sharp' turn 'all the way in the other lane' before coming to a stop. During the chase, K.B. asked to be returned to her sister's home. D responded that he would do so once her brother-in-law, who was also following them, stopped the chase. K.B. testified that D proceeded throughout the neighborhood at approximately twenty-five to thirty miles per hour for approximately thirty minutes. D was 'calm' and 'under control' and insisted that he intended to return K.B. to her sister's home. D stopped the vehicle one block behind K.B.'s sister's home. D and K.B. then walked around the neighborhood with D holding K.B.'s hand. Her attempts to run away were unsuccessful. They returned to the vehicle, drove by K.B.'s sister's home, and noticed that police officers were present. D parked one block from K.B.'s sister's house and walked away. K.B. was testifying because her parents threatened that if she did not, a warrant would be issued for her arrest. She explained to the police and the prosecutor's office that D had not threatened her or forced her 'to do anything' while they were in the vehicle. The trial court instructed the jury: A person is guilty of criminal restraint if he knowingly restrains another unlawfully in circumstances exposing the other to the risk of serious bodily injury. In order for you to find D guilty of this offense, the State must prove the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and those essential elements are as follows: D knowingly restrained [K.B.]; the restraint was known by D to be unlawful; the restraint was under circumstances exposing [K.B.] to the risk of serious bodily injury. D objected contending there must be knowledge to all three elements of the proof. The jury had trouble with the third element and asked for recharge on it and D once again objected. D was convicted and appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.