# People v. Martinez

> California Court of Appeal · January 9, 1984 · 150 Cal. App. 3d 579

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9721405

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MANUEL MARTINEZ Et Al., Defendants and Appellants
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** January 9, 1984
- **Citations:** 150 Cal. App. 3d 579; 198 Cal. Rptr. 565; 1984 Cal. App. LEXIS 1482
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Saeta
- **Judges:** Kingsley, Saeta
- **Cited by:** 33 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Disapproved on other grounds by People v. Hayes, 52 Cal. 3d 577 (1990).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9721405

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9721405. Public record. Not legal advice.