# People v. Dominguez

> California Supreme Court · August 28, 2006 · 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 575

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9789030

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FERNANDO DOMINGUEZ, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 28, 2006
- **Citations:** 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 575; 39 Cal. 4th 1141; 140 P.3d 866; 2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7971; 2006 Cal. LEXIS 9977
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Corrigan
- **Judges:** Werdegar
- **Cited by:** 156 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9789030

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

*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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9789030. Public record. Not legal advice.