Page 3
Acquittal of False Imprisonment Did Not Bar Conviction on Kidnapping Count—C.A.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Acquittal of a defendant by a judge on a false-imprisonment count did not preclude the conviction of that man by a jury two days later, in the same case, of kidnapping the victim, the Fifth District Court of Appeal has held.
Presiding Justice Brad Hill authored the unpublished opinion, filed Thursday. It affirms a judgment by Kern Superior Court Judge John R. Brownlee, contested by defendant Ronald Mark Feldmeier, a recidivist with 29 strikes who was sentenced by the judge to 38 years to life in prison based on his abduction of a homeless woman.
False imprisonment is a lesser included offense in kidnapping. The difference between the two crimes is that kidnapping entails “asportation”—movement of the victim—while false imprisonment does not.
The victim voluntarily entered Feldmeier’s SUV; after the vehicle was in motion, she asked to be let out; the defendant did not oblige; she jumped out while the SUV was moving.
Kidnapping or Nothing
At trial, Feldmeier argued that the degree of movement was insufficient to support a kidnapping conviction but that, given that there was movement, either there was a kidnapping, or no crime was committed.
On March 18, 2024, Brownlee granted his motion for acquittal of false imprisonment and on March 20, a jury convicted Feldmeier of kidnapping. He argued on appeal that the acquittal on a count that constituted an element of kidnapping rendered the conviction a violation of his right against double jeopardy.
Hill responded:
“Although the chronology of the proceedings shows the jury convicted defendant of kidnapping two days after the trial court acquitted defendant of false imprisonment, the conviction did not occur in a subsequent prosecution for double jeopardy purposes….Defendant’s conviction on the kidnapping count occurred within the same prosecution as the acquittal of the false imprisonment count….As such, we agree with the People that defendant’s false imprisonment acquittal did not affect his kidnapping conviction.”
Judicial Estoppel
He added in a footnote:
“Although the People did not raise the issue, it appears defendant should be judicially estopped from making this argument….In the trial court, defendant obtained an acquittal of the false imprisonment count, arguing, based on this record, ‘It is either a kidnapping or no crime.’ Defendant’s argument therefore accepted the legal possibility of a conviction for kidnapping. On appeal, defendant now argues he cannot be convicted of kidnapping as a result of the acquittal of false imprisonment. Thus, defendant is now seeking a second advantage by taking a position incompatible with that taken below. However, application of the judicial estoppel doctrine is discretionary…, and the People did not seek to enforce the estoppel, so we instead reject the claim on its merits.”
The case is People v. Feldmeier, F087945.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company