## Facts

- Two prosecutions were consolidated, each arising from a single, continuous criminal episode in which victims were robbed and briefly restrained.
- In one incident, after a restaurant closed, two armed offenders entered, announced a holdup, demanded money, and forced employees to move and remain under control inside the premises while cash was taken.
- The State charged armed robbery and aggravated kidnapping, treating the victims’ limited movement and detention during the robbery as the basis for kidnapping.
- In the other incident, the defendant similarly robbed victims and restrained them only as needed to carry out the robbery, without substantial removal, secret confinement, or prolonged detention apart from the robbery.
- In both cases, the intermediate appellate court reversed the aggravated kidnapping convictions as incidental to the robberies, and the State sought review.

## Issues

1. Whether due process permits a separate kidnapping conviction when the victim’s confinement, movement, or detention occurs during another felony and is essentially incidental to that felony.
2. What standard governs determining when restraint during an accompanying felony has sufficient independent significance to support a kidnapping conviction.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the reversal of the aggravated kidnapping convictions and left the armed robbery convictions undisturbed.
- The Court held that, as a matter of due process, kidnapping convictions cannot rest on restraint that is essentially incidental to the accompanying felony and lacks independent criminal significance.
- Applying that standard, the Court concluded the State proved no restraint meaningfully exceeding what was inherent in accomplishing the robberies.

## Legal Principles

- Due process limits kidnapping convictions under broadly worded kidnapping statutes when the restraint is part of committing another felony; the analysis is not governed by double jeopardy elements tests.
- A court must determine whether the confinement, movement, or detention is essentially incidental to the accompanying felony and, if so, whether it is significant enough on its own to warrant independent prosecution.
- Independent significance may be shown when the restraint (a) prevents the victim from summoning help, (b) lessens the defendant’s risk of detection, or (c) creates a significant danger or increased risk of harm beyond that inherent in the underlying felony.
- When restraint does not exceed what is necessary to accomplish the accompanying felony, evidence is insufficient to support a separate kidnapping conviction.

## Conclusion

The court held that due process forbids separate aggravated kidnapping convictions where the victims’ brief, robbery-related detention and movement were essentially incidental to armed robbery and did not create an independent, increased risk or other distinct criminal harm.


State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991)