## Facts

- A jury convicted Terry Lee Goolsby of 13 felony counts arising from home invasions and rapes of two women, S.P. and H.M.M., including kidnapping with bodily injury for each victim.
- S.P., age 70, required constant use of an oxygen tank and lived in a mobile home community.
- On September 8, 2002, Goolsby broke into S.P.’s home while she slept on a couch, sexually assaulted her, and fled when startled.
- Eleven days later around 4:00 a.m., S.P. heard noises, stood up from her couch, and took a few steps toward the kitchen; Goolsby emerged, grabbed her wrists, forcefully walked her backward a couple of steps to the couch, pushed her down, raped her, and fled.
- On December 21, 2002 around 4:00 a.m., in the same community, H.M.M. awoke to a loud noise and encountered Goolsby inside her home.
- H.M.M. ran toward the front door; Goolsby caught her and pulled her toward the bedroom, displayed a knife, beat her, tied her hands, forced her into the bedroom, and raped her.
- Goolsby was sentenced to life plus 45 years; his motion for new trial was denied.
- On appeal, he challenged only the kidnapping-with-bodily-injury convictions, contesting the asportation element and the related jury instruction.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence showed sufficient asportation to support kidnapping with bodily injury as to S.P., where she was moved backward a couple of steps to a couch during the assault.
2. Whether the evidence showed sufficient asportation to support kidnapping with bodily injury as to H.M.M., where she was pulled from near the front door into the bedroom, restrained, and assaulted.
3. Whether the trial court’s asportation instruction was erroneous under Garza, and if so, whether any error was harmless.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- The court reversed the kidnapping-with-bodily-injury conviction involving S.P., holding the evidence of asportation was insufficient under Garza.
- The court affirmed the kidnapping-with-bodily-injury conviction involving H.M.M., holding the evidence of asportation was sufficient under Garza.
- As to the jury charge, the court concluded that any instructional error was harmless with respect to H.M.M. due to the strength of the asportation evidence; insufficiency required reversal as to S.P. regardless of the charge.
- All other convictions were affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Under Georgia law after Garza, kidnapping requires movement (asportation) that is not merely incidental to another offense.
- Asportation is evaluated by considering whether the movement is inherent in the underlying crime, whether it substantially isolates the victim from protection or rescue, and whether it significantly increases the risk of harm beyond the underlying offense.
- Minimal movement within a confined area that does not materially increase isolation or risk of harm may be insufficient to establish kidnapping.
- Moving a victim away from an escape route into a more secluded area, coupled with threats or restraint, can satisfy asportation by increasing isolation and risk.
- An erroneous jury instruction may be harmless where the evidence establishes the contested element beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court applied Garza’s asportation framework to distinguish incidental movement during a rape (insufficient for kidnapping with bodily injury as to S.P.) from movement that removed a victim from an exit and increased isolation and danger (sufficient as to H.M.M.), reversing one kidnapping conviction and affirming the other.


Goolsby v. State, 311 Ga. App. 650, 718 S.E.2d 9 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)