Denver Post: The Varlamov Investigation: Part II *Read the MOD WARNING in post #1*

[snailderby]

Forgive me for not reading all of the posts on here first, but has a police report on this subject been released?

 

[5280]

I don't know if this is what you are looking for but the warrant and a lot of other info is here.

 

[snailderby]

Here

Thanks, 18007.

 

[JoemAvs]

How long until he has to be charged ?
I read a post that stated something about 72h or atleast they would have to ask for an extension.

I am assuming that the weekend did not count.
So if we don't hear anything about this until Tuesday, no charges will be filed?

 

[Crisp Breakout]

I don't know what the law is like in Colorado, but common law kidnapping includes any movement (however slight) of the victim. So if Varlamov grabbed his girlfriend by the hair and dragged her from one room to another against her will, that would be kidnapping under the common law.

Update: I did some quick research on Colorado law. The following quote is from a 1985 Colorado Supreme Court case, Apodaca v. People, 712 P.2d 467, 475 (Colo. 1985). I'm not 100% sure whether it's still good law, but I didn't see any flag on the case indicating that it's been overruled:

I'm not entirely sure this is still good law either, but see 809 P.2d 1026 (EDIT: cert denied). The bolded would not be so clear cut.

Defendant next asserts that defendant's conviction for second degree kidnapping should be vacated because of insufficient evidence and a faulty jury instruction. We agree with defendant's first argument and, therefore, do not address the second.

To support defendant's conviction for second degree kidnapping, the prosecution was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant “seize[d] and carrie[d] any person from one place to another....” Section 18-3-302(1) C.R.S. (1989 ***.Supp.). We agree with defendant that the movement alleged here-the husband's march from his living room to his bedroom at gunpoint-does not satisfy this element of asportation.

1920 The movement of the victim necessary to sustain a second degree kidnapping conviction need not be substantial, Apodaca v. People, 712 P.2d 467 (Colo.1985), and may be incidental to another crime. People v. Powell, 716 P.2d 1096 (Colo.1986). However, the prosecution must establish not only that the victim was moved, but also that the movement substantially increased the risk of harm to the victim. People v. Fuller, 791 P.2d 702 (Colo.1990). This requirement is useful in order to distinguish second degree kidnapping both from any crime it accompanies, such as assault, and from the crime of false imprisonment, from which it differs only in requiring movement. People v. Arispe, 191 Colo. 555, 555 P.2d 525 (1976); see generally Model Penal Code § 212.1 (Comments) (1980); Note, A Rationale of the Law of Kidnapping, 53 Colum.L.Rev. 540 (1953).

Here, not only was the movement of the victim within his own house insubstantial, there is also no evidence that it resulted in any increase in harm to the victim. There is no evidence that the bedroom was windowless and afforded no escape route. Moreover, the husband was not confined there at gunpoint, but rather was left there alone long enough to enable him to call the police. Finally, the record indicates that the length of his seizure and detention was no more than a few minutes.

 

[falconski]

How long until he has to be charged ?
I read a post that stated something about 72h or atleast they would have to ask for an extension.

I am assuming that the weekend did not count.
So if we don't hear anything about this until Tuesday, no charges will be filed?

I'm not sure if the weekend would count or not...I'd have to assume the majority of crimes occur on the weekend

 

[snailderby]

I don't know what the law is like in Colorado, but common law kidnapping includes any movement (however slight) of the victim. So if Varlamov grabbed his girlfriend by the hair and dragged her from one room to another against her will, that would be kidnapping under the common law

I'm not entirely sure this is still good law either, but see 809 P.2d 1026 (EDIT: cert denied). The bolded would not be so clear cut.

Defendant next asserts that defendant's conviction for second degree kidnapping should be vacated because of insufficient evidence and a faulty jury instruction. We agree with defendant's first argument and, therefore, do not address the second.

To support defendant's conviction for second degree kidnapping, the prosecution was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant “seize[d] and carrie[d] any person from one place to another....” Section 18-3-302(1) C.R.S. (1989 ***.Supp.). We agree with defendant that the movement alleged here-the husband's march from his living room to his bedroom at gunpoint-does not satisfy this element of asportation.

1920 The movement of the victim necessary to sustain a second degree kidnapping conviction need not be substantial, Apodaca v. People, 712 P.2d 467 (Colo.1985), and may be incidental to another crime. People v. Powell, 716 P.2d 1096 (Colo.1986). However, the prosecution must establish not only that the victim was moved, but also that the movement substantially increased the risk of harm to the victim. People v. Fuller, 791 P.2d 702 (Colo.1990). This requirement is useful in order to distinguish second degree kidnapping both from any crime it accompanies, such as assault, and from the crime of false imprisonment, from which it differs only in requiring movement. People v. Arispe, 191 Colo. 555, 555 P.2d 525 (1976); see generally Model Penal Code § 212.1 (Comments) (1980); Note, A Rationale of the Law of Kidnapping, 53 Colum.L.Rev. 540 (1953).

Here, not only was the movement of the victim within his own house insubstantial, there is also no evidence that it resulted in any increase in harm to the victim. There is no evidence that the bedroom was windowless and afforded no escape route. Moreover, the husband was not confined there at gunpoint, but rather was left there alone long enough to enable him to call the police. Finally, the record indicates that the length of his seizure and detention was no more than a few minutes.

You're right. I missed the requirement that the movement of the victim must have substantially increased the risk of harm to the victim. I stand corrected. In this case, Varlamov was only charged with second degree kidnapping and third degree assault, right?

 

[Freudian]

You're right. I missed the requirement that the movement of the victim must have substantially increased the risk of harm to the victim. I stand corrected. In this case, Varlamov was only charged with second degree kidnapping and third degree assault, right?

He's not been charged with anything yet. The DA has 72 hours after bail hearing to charge him.

 

[snailderby]

He's not been charged with anything yet. The DA has 72 hours after bail hearing to charge him.

Oh, I gotcha. When was the bail hearing?

 

[Freudian]

Oh, I gotcha. When was the bail hearing?

I think it was Thursday morning.

 

[Ceremony]

The hearing with the judge was at 10AM MT on Thursday. So they have until 9AM MT tomorrow, depending on what they do with the clocks changing.

 

[Foppa2118]

I think it was Thursday morning.

Yea it was during the Avs practice, so roughly 10-12pm sometime probably. That would mean they have until tomorrow morning to file charges? I would assume since it's listed as 72 hours, and not three days, that would mean the weekend wouldn't delay it, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Ceremony]

I'm a bit surprised he wasn't charged during the game last night.

 

[Freudian]

I'm a bit surprised he wasn't charged during the game last night.

Seguin's shot seemed to handcuff him.

 

[Ulic]

Seguin's shot seemed to handcuff him.

Buuuurn

 

[LazRNN]

I got to admit, watching the legit translation of the video from her seemed a little more believable for some reason. Seemed more natural, and cut and dry with what "happened" rather than sensationalized.

This situation sucks. I really hope Varly didn't do this.

Same here. I couldn't root for him at all if any of this is true. I'll admit I want to believe he's been falsely accused for no other reason than him playing for the team I root for.

 

[Bonzai12]

I'm going to flip the coin on this big time, because you guys all probably think I am 100% sided with the girl.

I was speaking to my Russian friends last night that are well integrated with the Russian Community and came up with a couple interesting points -

1) The translator that is under fire is here for 3 weeks visiting and is a Russian Journalist. It's extremely possible that she didn't know the English words to translate what the girl was actually saying. This is a theory and my friends didn't watch the interview.

2) I forgot about this, but it's possible under VAWA rules that if this girl has her case tried successfully, she will receive a green card and he is subject to possible deportation. I already had mentioned the deporting part, but the VAWA part may possibly be argued in the case against her - that she is using this as a means of both money AND receiving immigration status.


Sidenote: My wife and I are going as Varly and model tonight for Halloween. Too soon? Too soon?

 

[Drij]

I'm going to flip the coin on this big time, because you guys all probably think I am 100% sided with the girl.

I was speaking to my Russian friends last night that are well integrated with the Russian Community and came up with a couple interesting points -

1) The translator that is under fire is here for 3 weeks visiting and is a Russian Journalist. It's extremely possible that she didn't know the English words to translate what the girl was actually saying. This is a theory and my friends didn't watch the interview.

2) I forgot about this, but it's possible under VAWA rules that if this girl has her case tried successfully, she will receive a green card and he is subject to possible deportation. I already had mentioned the deporting part, but the VAWA part may possibly be argued in the case against her - that she is using this as a means of both money AND receiving immigration status.


Sidenote: My wife and I are going as Varly and model tonight for Halloween. Too soon? Too soon?

The Russian Journalist wasn't the translator in the video. The Russian Journalist just retranslated the video for the dever post.

 

[Avs44]

I'm going to flip the coin on this big time, because you guys all probably think I am 100% sided with the girl.

I was speaking to my Russian friends last night that are well integrated with the Russian Community and came up with a couple interesting points -

1) The translator that is under fire is here for 3 weeks visiting and is a Russian Journalist. It's extremely possible that she didn't know the English words to translate what the girl was actually saying. This is a theory and my friends didn't watch the interview.

2) I forgot about this, but it's possible under VAWA rules that if this girl has her case tried successfully, she will receive a green card and he is subject to possible deportation. I already had mentioned the deporting part, but the VAWA part may possibly be argued in the case against her - that she is using this as a means of both money AND receiving immigration status.


Sidenote: My wife and I are going as Varly and model tonight for Halloween. Too soon? Too soon?

Are you sure about this part? From what I've gathered, the person who's come under fire was the fiancé of the girls lawyer and the girls friend. She incorrectly translated some parts. A reporter who is visiting for three weeks correctly translated the interview for the Denver post.

 

[Freudian]

Are you sure about this part? From what I've gathered, the person who's come under fire was the fiancé of the girls lawyer and the girls friend. She incorrectly translated some parts. A reporter who is visiting for three weeks correctly translated the interview for the Denver post.

Correct. The first translator was the friend/lawyers wife and the re-translation was done by a visiting Russian journalist.

 

[klozge]

The hearing with the judge was at 10AM MT on Thursday. So they have until 9AM MT tomorrow, depending on what they do with the clocks changing.

Wow. I'm think Varly is innocent but this rule is dumb.

 

[bohlmeister]

Wow. I'm think Varly is innocent but this rule is dumb.

That is just to decide if it is a legitimate case or not. If there isn't substantial enough evidence it will be thrown out. If there is, a court date will be scheduled. Or that is my understanding.

 

[tigervixxxen]

I don't think it is a firm deadline, the DA has discretion and certainly will act upon it since we are in a weekend.

Another thought I had is it doesn't make sense under the scenario Varly is the monster painted in the story that he would be throwing her out. The cycle of abuse usually is "I'm sorry baby, please come back, I'll change, I'll give you anything you need". If he did something horrible and then why would his next step be to throw her out? He knew it would piss her off and knowing if she had any ammunition against him this was not a good idea. Not saying he was for sure thinking rationally the entire time but it doesn't seem to fit logically. I'm trying not to speculate here, we know next to nothing. I'm just trying to think of angles that I would consider if I was presented this case.

 

[Crisp Breakout]

He's not been charged with anything yet. The DA has 72 hours after bail hearing to charge him.

That doesn't sound right. Are you sure it's not that he must have a bail hearing within 72 hours of arrest?

 

[Freudian]

That doesn't sound right. Are you sure it's not that he must have a bail hearing within 72 hours of arrest?

They have to file charges or file for an extension within 72 hours, unless I completely misunderstood. I would suspect being granted an extension is fairly routine.