Bell v. Commonwealth
In Bell v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 93, 468 S.E.2d 114 (1996), Bell and an accomplice robbed two victims as the victims approached their car on a Richmond street. Id. at 96, 468 S.E.2d at 116.
After handing over their possessions, the victims attempted to flee, but Bell ordered them to return at gunpoint. Id. at 97, 468 S.E.2d at 116.
Bell then forced the victims to the other side of their car and ordered them to lie on the ground. Id. After patting the legs of the female victim, Bell sexually assaulted her. Id.
The Court held as follows:
The jury could reasonably have found from the evidence that Bell's actions in pulling the sexual assault victim around the car and ordering her to lie down were acts of restraint and asportation separate and apart from the restraint inherent in either the sexual assault or the robbery. Furthermore, the jury could reasonably have concluded that Bell moved her to avoid detection. 22 Va. App. at 97-98, 468 S.E.2d at 116.
In Bell, restraining and asportating the victims constituted an additional act not necessary to the robbery or the sexual assault.
Bell and his accomplice could have completed their series of crimes without moving the victims to the other side of the car; they did not do so.
Therefore, the jury could have concluded that they were guilty of the separate crime of abduction.