discussing People v. Thornton, 11 Cal.3d 738, 114 Cal.Rptr. 467, 523 P.2d 267 which stated any substantial asportation by force necessarily exposes the victim to greater risk
How later courts described this case
- discussing People v. Thornton, 11 Cal.3d 738, 114 Cal.Rptr. 467, 523 P.2d 267 which stated any substantial asportation by force necessarily exposes the victim to greater risk
- moving victim ten to thirteen city blocks not incidental to robbery
- increased risk of harm might occur from “an auto accident” or from the victim “attempt[ing] to escape from the moving car or be pushed therefrom”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Superseded by statute, as recognized in People v. Vines
14 Cal.3d 122, 131 , superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Vines, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 869
The opinion
CLARK, J.
I concur in the judgment and opinion of the court except insofar as it distinguishes People v. Timmons (1971) 4 Cal.3d 411 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 736 , 482 P.2d 648 ] as to the “risk of harm” factor. (Ante, p. 132.) Timmons should simply be overruled.
McComb, J., concurred.