## Facts

- Edward Ronald Beatty and others agreed to rob “South 21,” a drive-in restaurant in Charlotte, North Carolina.
- When the group arrived, the owner, Nicholas Copsis, was outside an open door; a robber put a gun to Copsis’s head and ordered him inside to open the safe.
- Inside were two employees: Hristos Poulos (washing the floor at the front) and Tom Koufaloitis (near the safe in the back).
- During the robbery, one robber held a gun to Poulos’s head and guarded him while the robbery proceeded.
- Another robber duct-taped Koufaloitis’s wrists, forced him to lie on the floor, and kicked him twice.
- When Copsis initially failed to open the safe, the robbers shot him twice in the legs; he then opened the safe and the robbers took money and fled.
- The incident lasted about three to four minutes.
- Beatty was convicted of armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, entering, and two counts of second-degree kidnapping based on alleged restraint of Poulos and Koufaloitis.

## Issues

1. Whether the restraint of each employee was “separate and apart” from restraint inherent in armed robbery, so as to support separate convictions for second-degree kidnapping.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the second-degree kidnapping conviction involving Koufaloitis.
- The court reversed the second-degree kidnapping conviction involving Poulos.
- The court left Beatty’s other convictions and sentences undisturbed, except as affected by reversal of the Poulos kidnapping conviction.

## Legal Principles

- Under North Carolina law, kidnapping requires unlawful confinement, restraint, or removal for a specified purpose, including facilitating the commission of a felony.
- When the kidnapping theory is based on restraint occurring during another felony (such as armed robbery), the State must prove restraint “separate and apart from” restraint that is an inherent and inevitable feature of the other felony.
- The “separate and apart” inquiry focuses on the nature, duration, and extent of the restraint, including whether it prolonged confinement, increased the victim’s risk of harm, or otherwise had independent significance beyond the underlying felony.
- Binding and forcibly immobilizing a victim (e.g., duct-taping, forcing the victim prone), particularly with additional violence, can constitute restraint exceeding what is ordinarily necessary to commit armed robbery.
- Holding a victim at gunpoint and guarding the victim, without movement, prolonged detention, or additional restraint beyond what is needed to complete the robbery, typically remains inherent in armed robbery and does not alone support a separate kidnapping conviction.

## Conclusion

The court held that duct-taping Koufaloitis’s wrists, forcing him onto the floor, and kicking him constituted restraint independent of the armed robbery and supported kidnapping, while merely guarding Poulos at gunpoint during the robbery did not exceed robbery’s inherent restraint and could not sustain a separate kidnapping conviction.


State v. Beatty, 347 N.C. 555, 495 S.E.2d 367 (N.C. 1998)