In the instant case, the defendant robbed a liquor store by approaching the two owners as

they were closing the store, forcing them to unlock the doors, and making them empty out money
from two places in the store. This was done at gunpoint. The defendant was charged with two
counts of robbery with a firearm and one count of kidnapping. We argue that since the defendant
only robbed one location, he should only be charged with one count of robbery with a firearm. In
researching defense, how important is the number of victims present? Since kidnapping always
involves a movement of location, and the people kidnapped were moved because of the
robbery, could this invalidate the offense of kidnapping?
Brown v. State, 430 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1983)
Brown entered a store and, brandishing a firearm, ordered a cashier to empty the money
from the cash register into a bag. He then ordered her to open a second cash register, but since
she had no key, she summoned another cashier to help her. This second cashier opened the
second cash register and emptied its contents into Browns bag. Brown was charged with and
found guilty of two counts of armed robbery.
This case was taken to the Florida Supreme Court, which approved the original decision
of convicting Brown of two counts of armed robbery. The court reasoned that because he robbed
two separate employees and two separate cash registers, especially considering that the second
register was under the sole control of the second employee, the two events were separate in time
and criminal intent. It further stated that [a]ctual ownership of the money obtained is not
dispositive of the question of whether multiple robberies have been committed. What is
dispositive is whether there have been successive and distinct forceful takings with a separate
and independent intent for each transaction. Brown, 430 So. 2d at 447. Brown placed two
distinct employees in fear at separate times, unlike the instant case where both employees were
victimized at the same time and in the same location.
Hill v. State, 293 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974)
In this case, Hill entered a store, brandishing a gun, and ordered two workers to give him
money belonging to the store from a drawer and a safe. The court decided that because the
money was taken at the same time, in the same place, and under the same circumstances with
the same intent, only a single larceny has been committed. Hill, 293 So. 2d at 79. This case is
very similar to the instant case, in that the accused intimidated two workers at once and stole
from two places in a single location. The court ultimately reversed, agreeing that only one
robbery, instead of two, had been committed. It supports its decision with Hearn v. State, 55 So.
2d 559 (Fla. 1951).
Fairson v. State, 426 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1983)
The significance in this case lies in its establishment of a three-prong test to determine
whether the confinement or movement of victims during the commission of another crime is
enough to support a kidnapping charge. The resulting decision is as follows:
[I]f a taking or confinement is alleged to have been done to facilitate the commission of
another crime, to be kidnapping the resulting movement or confinement:
(a) Must not be slight, inconsequential and merely incidental to the other crime;
(b) Must not be of the kind inherent in the nature of the other crime; and

(c) Must have some significance independent of the other crime in that it makes the other
crime substantially easier of commission or substantially lessens the risk of detection.
Fairson, 426 So. 2d at 965.
The kidnapping of the victims in the instant case was done as a direct and dependent action of
the robbery itself.
Braggs v. State, 789 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2001)
In this case, Braggs rounded up the victims during a home invasion, at gunpoint, and
proceeded to rob the property. Among others, Braggs appealed the conviction and sentence for
three counts of kidnapping. The court ultimately decided that gathering victims and holding them
at gunpoint does not constitute kidnapping, based mainly on the guidelines constructed by
Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1983). It also cites Berry v. State in its reasoning: [T]here
can be no kidnapping where the only confinement involved is the sort that, though not necessary
to the underlying felony, is likely to naturally accompany it. For example, if [the robbers] had
confined the victims by simply holding them at gunpoint, or if the robbers had moved the victims
to a different room in the apartment, closed the door, and ordered them not to come out, the
kidnapping conviction could not stand. 668 So. 2d 967. Braggs, 789 So. 2d at 1153. The
kidnapping charges were not supported if the kidnappings had no significance independent of
the burglary. In this case, as in the instant case, there was none. The court reversed.