“To establish the element of ‘presence,’ a victim need not perceive the actual taking so long as he perceives any overt act in the commission of the robbery and is subjected to the requisite force or fear.”
How later courts described this case
- “To establish the element of ‘presence,’ a victim need not perceive the actual taking so long as he perceives any overt act in the commission of the robbery and is subjected to the requisite force or fear.”
- movement and detention of victims within their residence did not constitute kidnapping where incidental to burglary, robbery and rape
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Disapproved on other grounds by People v. Hayes, 52 Cal. 3d 577 (1990)
150 Cal.App.3d 579 (Martinez), disapproved on another ground in People v. Hayes (1990) 52 Cal.3d 577, 628, fn. 10
The opinion
SAETA, J. *
I concur and dissent.
I agree with the majority in all parts of the opinion except for part II, which relates to the kidnaping of Mrs. Goodfellow. I would affirm the convictions for her kidnaping based on my view of the totality of the circumstances facing her. She had been confined, assaulted and raped for a considerable period of time. Until the perpetrators had left the house, or she *609 had escaped from the house or to the safety of the policemen or her husband, her confinement had not ended. It does not seem realistic to me to divide her confinement as a victim of rape and robbery from her confinement as a hostage under the sequence of events present in this case. While the motives of the defendants may have changed after the rapes, Mrs. Goodfellow’s confinement did not, and thus, under either theory advanced by the majority, she was held as a hostage.
Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied February 29, 1984.
Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.