Summary
The Nevada Supreme Court reversed Michael J. Schofield's first-degree kidnapping conviction. The court held that the phrase "intent to keep" in NRS 200.310(1) is ambiguous and, under the rule of lenity, requires proof that the defendant intended to keep the minor permanently or for a protracted period. Because the evidence showed an intent to take the child to a store and return him, the conviction was unsupported by sufficient evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the phrase "intent to keep" in Nevada Revised Statutes § 200.310(1) is ambiguous.
- If ambiguous, whether the statute requires proof that the defendant intended to keep the minor permanently or for a protracted period of time.
- Whether sufficient evidence supported Schofield's first-degree kidnapping conviction under that interpretation.
Holdings
- The phrase "intent to keep" is ambiguous because "keep" reasonably may mean either retaining possession permanently or for a protracted period or restraining a person from departure for any period.
- The rule of lenity requires that "intent to keep" be interpreted to require an intent to keep the minor permanently or for a protracted period of time.
- The evidence was insufficient to support Schofield's first-degree kidnapping conviction because no rational juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to keep Michael permanently or for a protracted period.
Key quotations
“Thus, we conclude that NRS 200.310(1)'s "intent to keep" language is ambiguous.” (at 4)
“Based on the foregoing, we now conclude that the rule of lenity requires that we interpret NRS 200.310(1)'s "intent to keep" requirement as requiring an intent to keep a minor permanently or for a protracted period of time.” (at 6)
“Accordingly, Schofield's first-degree kidnapping conviction is reversed as unsupported by the evidence against him.” (at 7)
Factual background
Schofield, the child's father, visited his son, Michael, who was in the legal custody of his grandparents. After Michael refused to accompany Schofield to a grocery store, Schofield physically restrained him, dragged him outside, and threw him into a van. Neighbors intervened before Schofield could leave, and the trial evidence showed that Schofield intended to take Michael to the store and return him to his custodians.
Procedural history
Schofield was charged with child abuse, neglect, or endangerment; domestic violence by strangulation; burglary; and first-degree kidnapping. A jury convicted him of child abuse and first-degree kidnapping and acquitted him of the remaining charges. He appealed only the first-degree kidnapping conviction, arguing that the statutory intent-to-keep requirement was ambiguous and that the evidence was insufficient under the proper interpretation.