holding that defendant was not entitled to mistaken-belief instruction with regard to victim’s consent because he did not request that instruction at trial and evidence of his belief was insignificant
How later courts described this case
- holding that defendant was not entitled to mistaken-belief instruction with regard to victim’s consent because he did not request that instruction at trial and evidence of his belief was insignificant
- noting that aggravated kidnapping is a specific intent crime
- looking at “whether the movement decreases the likelihood of detection”
- “The essence of aggravated kidnapping is the increase in the risk of harm to the victim caused by the forced movement.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*1163 CORRIGAN, J., Concurring.
I concur in the majority’s affirming in part and reversing in part the Court of Appeal’s judgment. In particular, I agree with the majority’s conclusion that substantial evidence supports defendant’s conviction for aggravated kidnapping. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 1153.) I think it unnecessary to go further and discuss the asportation standard for simple kidnapping in 1997. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 1154-1155.)
As the majority notes, defendant asserts “the evidence of asportation was insufficient because it showed the victim was moved less than 90 feet. He maintains that, at the time of his crime, simple kidnapping required a movement of more than 90 feet, and because simple kidnapping was a lesser included offense of aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping for rape must have required a movement of more than 90 feet.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 1154.) The response to this argument is that here, defendant was convicted of aggravated, not simple kidnapping. At the time of his crime, we had recently reaffirmed that for aggravated kidnapping “there is no minimum number of feet a defendant must move a victim.” (People v. Rayford (1994) 9 Cal.4th 1, 12 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 317 , 884 P.2d 1369 ]; see People v. Daniels (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1119, 1128 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 897 , 459 P.2d 225 ] [to define the required movement “in terms of a specific number of inches or feet or miles would be open to a charge of arbitrariness”].)
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied November 1, 2006, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above.