Opinion ID: 1356054
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence Supporting the Kidnapping Special Circumstance

Text: Defendant contends Middleton's kidnapping was merely incidental to his murder, and thus the kidnapping-murder special circumstance must be reversed. [W]here an accused's primary goal was not to kidnap but to kill, and where a kidnaping was merely incidental to a murder but not committed to advance an independent felonious purpose, a kidnaping-felony-murder special circumstance finding cannot be sustained. ( People v. Weidert (1985) 39 Cal.3d 836, 842, 218 Cal.Rptr. 57, 705 P.2d 380.) We must examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and decide whether a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had a purpose for the kidnapping apart from murder. ( People v. Raley (1992) 2 Cal.4th 870, 902, 8 Cal. Rptr.2d 678, 830 P.2d 712.) We find sufficient evidence of an independent purpose to sustain the kidnapping-murder special circumstance. Edwards testified that defendant robbed Middleton of his wallet while the three were driving him in the car, that is, after the asportation had begun. When defendant discovered the wallet contained only $13, he said to Middleton, I'm going to kill you now. This evidence warrants a finding that defendant did not always intend to kill Middleton, and kidnapped him only to facilitate that decision, but that he decided to kill only after the kidnapping, perhaps due to the small amount of money in Middleton's wallet. Defendant may have been undecided as to [Middleton's] fate when the kidnapping began. ( People v. Raley, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 903, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 678, 830 P.2d 712.) The jury could reasonably infer that defendant formed the intent to kill after the asportation, making the kidnapping not merely incidental to the murder. ( Ibid. ) Against this conclusion, defendant argues that the inference that Middleton was kidnapped for the purpose of stealing $13 from him, after more than $300 had been taken from the truck stop cash register, is not a reasonable inferencepresumably because $13 is too small an amount to motivate the kidnapping. However, the evidence suggests that defendant did not know how little money Middleton had until after the kidnapping, and that he was disappointed and angered when he discovered the amount. Substantial evidence supports the jury verdict.