State v. Denmon
New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
347 N.J. Super. 457 (2002)

- Written by Kelli Lanski, JD
Facts
Lester Denmon (defendant) worked at the home of James and Ethel Scott, a couple in their eighties, and believed they kept a lot of money in a suitcase. He discussed a plan with James Chester to rob the Scotts and drove Chester to their house to commit the crime. Denmon gave Chester a gun and handcuffs and instructed Chester to handcuff the Scotts before leaving with their money. Chester knocked on the Scotts’ door and asked to call a tow truck because his car had broken down. They let him in to use the phone, at which time he pulled out the gun and demanded their money. They said they did not keep money in the house, so Chester took a credit card and $40 from James’s wallet, had James and Ethel sit on a chair, and then handcuffed them to each other. Chester left and returned to Denmon’s car. The Scotts tried to get out of the chair but had difficultly due to Ethel’s limited mobility resulting from knee replacements. After five minutes of struggle, they broke free and called police. Denmon was convicted of first-degree kidnapping and appealed, arguing that because the Scotts were confined for only five minutes in their own home and were not otherwise harmed, a kidnapping charge was inappropriate.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wallace, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

