Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

United States v. Acevedo

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2018 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureKidnappingLegal SufficiencyInveiglementArticle 134kidnappinginveiglementmental coercion

Facts

At a bar, Appellant, an NCO in PV2 AM's platoon, told PV2 AM and her boyfriend that he would report her for underage drinking unless she got in a cab and returned to base. After her boyfriend left, PV2 AM left the bar with Appellant and believed she was entering a taxi to go back to base, but Appellant followed her into the taxi and gave the driver his home address instead. During the five-to-ten minute ride, Appellant pulled PV2 AM next to him and held her hand, and she remained in the taxi because she feared Appellant would report her if she did otherwise. The court treated the kidnapping, if any, as complete at the end of the taxi ride.

Issue

Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support Appellant's conviction for kidnapping by inveiglement under Article 134, UCMJ. Specifically, the question was whether a rational factfinder could find that Appellant inveigled PV2 AM into the taxi, held her against her will during the taxi ride, and did so willfully and wrongfully.

Rule

Evidence is legally sufficient if, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. For kidnapping under Article 134, the Government must prove that the accused seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, or carried away a person; then held that person against that person's will; and did so willfully and wrongfully. Inveiglement means luring, leading astray, or enticing by false representations or other deceitful means, and a victim may be held against her will through force, mental or physical coercion, or false representations.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a nightclub in San Diego, Staff Sergeant Nolan Price told Private Lena Ortiz that if she did not take a rideshare back to base immediately, he would report her for violating curfew. Lena got into the car believing it was headed to base, but Nolan climbed in after her and gave the driver his apartment address in Chula Vista. During the ten-minute ride, Lena stayed silent because she feared Nolan would carry out his threat if she objected.

If Nolan is charged with kidnapping by inveiglement and challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence, which is the strongest basis for upholding the conviction?

Explanation. The majority rule is that legal sufficiency exists if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Inveiglement includes luring or enticing by false representations, such as falsely inducing a person to enter a vehicle for one destination while directing the driver elsewhere. A victim may be held against her will through mental coercion, not just physical force, and the earlier threat may support that inference during the ride. (Derived from United States v. Acevedo (n.d.).)