Creek argued he could not be guilty of kidnapping because the kid was asleep. Was he correct? see In creek v. state(588 N.E.2d 1319 Ind App 1992)
No, Creek was not correct, at least not in the eyes of the court before which he made this argument.
In this case, Creek was found not liable for the tort of false imprisonment. This was because his victim was asleep during the entire period of his "imprisonment." Because of this, he suffered no harm.
Creek tried to use this result to argue that he was also not guilty of the crime of kidnap. This did not succeed. This is because a kidnap occurs whenever someone is unlawfully detained in a way that is dangerous to them. The danger to the victim existed regardless of whether the victim was asleep. Therefore, Creek's argument did not win the day.