## Facts

- Lester Denmon worked for James and Ethel Scott, an elderly couple, and believed they kept substantial cash at home.
- Denmon planned a robbery with James Chester, drove Chester to the Scotts’ home, and supplied a handgun and handcuffs.
- Chester gained entry by claiming he needed to use the phone, then displayed the gun, demanded money, took a credit card and about $40, and handcuffed the victims to each other while they were seated.
- The Scotts, including Mrs. Scott who had limited mobility due to knee replacements, struggled for roughly five minutes before freeing themselves and calling police.
- Denmon and Chester then used the stolen credit cards in multiple purchases where Denmon could be identified as the buyer.
- A jury convicted Denmon of first-degree kidnapping (two counts), first-degree armed robbery, weapons offenses, credit card theft and fraud offenses, theft by deception, forgery-related offenses, and certain-persons weapons offenses.
- The trial court denied post-verdict motions, imposed an extended term, and sentenced Denmon to concurrent extended terms of 40 years with 20 years of parole ineligibility on the kidnapping counts (with concurrent sentences on other counts).

## Issues

1. Whether evidence of handcuffing the elderly victims together in their home for about five minutes, to complete the robbery and escape, was sufficient to prove first-degree kidnapping by unlawful confinement under N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1(b).
2. Whether alleged prejudicial remarks by a State witness required a mistrial.
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying acquittal or a new trial based on sufficiency and weight of the evidence.
4. Whether the extended-term sentencing decision and overall sentence were lawful, including any needed correction.
5. Whether claims of suppressed exculpatory evidence, juror substitution after deliberations began, and ineffective assistance warranted relief on direct appeal.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed Denmon’s convictions, including the two first-degree kidnapping convictions.
- The court held the evidence permitted a rational finding that the victims were unlawfully confined to facilitate the robbery and flight, satisfying N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1(b).
- The court found no reversible error in denying a mistrial or in rejecting Denmon’s post-verdict motions.
- The court upheld the imposition of an extended term but ordered a limited sentencing modification on a discrete sentencing matter.
- The court rejected the remaining pro se claims on direct appeal, including Brady-based arguments and challenges to juror substitution; ineffective-assistance allegations were not resolved in Denmon’s favor on the trial record.

## Legal Principles

- Under N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1(b), kidnapping may be proven by unlawful confinement undertaken for a specified purpose, including facilitating the commission of a crime or flight thereafter.
- Confinement need not be prolonged or involve movement over a substantial distance; brief restraint inside a home can satisfy the statute when it meaningfully assists the underlying offense or escape and increases victim risk.
- In evaluating sufficiency, appellate review asks whether, viewing the evidence favorably to the State, a reasonable jury could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A mistrial is warranted only where prejudice is so substantial that it denies a fair trial; curative instructions and the trial court’s discretionary management are relevant.
- Brady relief requires suppression of material favorable evidence and a reasonable probability of a different outcome; speculative or non-material nondisclosure does not justify reversal.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Denmon’s convictions, holding that handcuffing an elderly couple together in their home for a short period, in order to complete an armed robbery and escape, constituted kidnapping by unlawful confinement under N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1(b); the extended-term sentence was largely upheld subject to a limited sentencing correction.


State v. Denmon, 347 N.J. Super. 457 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2002)