Background
Stephen Pilson was convicted in federal court for kidnapping his then-girlfriend, Rilka Stefanov, and for an interstate violation of a protective order following a series of violent incidents in late 2019. After a prior Massachusetts conviction for similar offenses, Pilson was released from jail and subsequently kidnapped Stefanov again, driving her from Massachusetts through New Hampshire into Maine while threatening her life. He was charged under federal statutes for kidnapping and violating a no-contact order issued during his prior state sentencing.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence for the kidnapping charge, concluding that a reasonable jury could infer the victim withdrew her consent and was held against her will before the vehicle crossed into Maine. Regarding the protective order charge, the court applied the definition from the Violence Against Women Act, ruling that a criminal no-contact order is issued on behalf of a victim if it is for their benefit, regardless of the victim’s subjective desire for contact at the time of the order’s issuance. The court also affirmed the obstruction of justice enhancement, finding the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the sentencing guideline based on the defendant’s attempts to influence the victim’s testimony.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that federal kidnapping statutes apply when a victim withdraws consent during interstate travel and clarifies that federal protection orders encompass criminal no-contact orders issued for a victim’s benefit even if the victim initially opposes them.