· People v Frankline (KA 10-01632) – 4AD first rejected D’s argument that the verdict with respect to the kidnapping counts was against the weight of the evidence because the People did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he restrained the victim. Victim testified that she was held against her will by D, her ex-boyfriend, in his apartment, where he repeatedly hit and kicked her while her arms and legs were bound with wire. D also poured gasoline on victim and threatened to set her on fire if she did not have anal intercourse with him. Although there may have been periods during which victim was not restrained, jury could have found that she was effectively restrained by D’s threats to harm her if she attempted to leave. There was also evidence corroborating D’s story, and the jury was entitled to credit her testimony over D’s.
4AD next rejected D’s contention that the lower court’s decision to permit the People to present evidence of subsequent crimes committed by D against the same victim effectively deprived D of his Fifth Amendment rights with respect to the subsequent crimes. The argument was not preserved, but in any event, the People were prohibited from cross-examining D regarding these crimes and they were admissible under People v Molineux.
Finally, 4AD found that the lower court properly concluded that the victim had apparent authority to consent to the search of D’s apartment. Although she no longer lived there, the search was conducted during the month for which the victim had paid rent, the utilities were still in her name, she retained the key to the apartment, and had left her cloths there.
