Opinion ID: 1202924
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the phrase carries away is ambiguous

Text: Even if defendant did not kidnap his victims, he would still be guilty of violating section 209 if he carried away any one of them. We must therefore scrutinize the phrase carries away in section 209. If we were to say that to carry away meant no more than to cause a victim to move one foot we should necessarily include the more rigidly defined term kidnap, since any act constituting kidnaping would also constitute carrying away. This would make kidnaps redundant in section 209. To carry away must therefore differ from to kidnap in some way other than in the distance required to consummate the crime. But the statutes and cases of California establish no clue as to the acts which deserve this label. The brief of the attorney general does not attempt to assist us. Penal Code, section 7, subdivision 16, states: Words and phrases must be construed according to the context and the approved usage of the language; but technical words and phrases, and such others as may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in law, must be construed according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning.... Webster's Unabridged Dictionary defines carry away thusly: a To remove from life [refers to death]; ... c To take possession of the mind; to move, sway, or charm; to delude; as, to be carried away by music, or by temptation ... d To succeed in obtaining; to be victorious in or over; to win; also, Obs., with it, to gain the victory; carry the day. These definitions do not fit the factual context of the instant case, nor do they appear to have any meaning relative to any forced movement of a person. The word away is defined thusly by Webster: 1. On the way; onward; along. 2. From a place; hence; thence;  of motion; as, go away; ... 4. a From contact or close association; aside; off ... 5. From one's possession;  with a sense of parting or loss; as, to give one's heart away. ... Meaning 2. of away, From a place may be relevant. Still, the term place is unclear since it may be used in such contexts as To move away from the window, or to move away from home. Its meaning as to distance is entirely contextual. To give it a meaning outside a context, as the Legislature has attempted to do, is meaningless. Away begs us to answer the query from what? Blackstone says that larceny required a carrying away. (Jones, Blackstone, p. 2440.) This element was satisfied by the slightest movement of the item to be taken. The essence of this common law crime was disturbance of possession and the movement of the property had to be accompanied by an intent to terminate the possession permanently. To rip a phrase from a finely woven context would make a crude patchwork of the statute. The disturbance of possession of personalty bears little resemblance to the deprivation of human freedom. They are different social menaces and terms used to describe them necessarily find themselves in dissimilar contexts playing semantical tricks on the unwary. I conclude that the technical meaning of carries away is relevant only to the context of personal property law and has no commonly recognized technical application to the realm of crimes against liberty. The vernacular usage of the term may provide help. Suppose one says, X carried Y away. What image arises in the mind of the hearer: Certainly not a picture of X forcing Y to move about a few feet in his own home. Or suppose one wished to describe X's forcing Y to move from one room to another. Many descriptive words and phrases come to mind before X carried Y away. For example, X forced Y to move against his will. The word away just does not fit the facts. If the Legislature intended to include all forced movements within its definition of section 209 kidnaping for robbery, a simpler and clearer term would have been used. This is particularly true in view of the consternation raised by the decision in People v. Knowles, supra . The allusion to the command of Penal Code, section 4, is also pertinent here. It is apparent that the 1951 amendment was enacted to assuage the mischief of the Knowles holding. In this context, this intent should not be construed into oblivion. And it certainly does not promote justice to hold that the movement of a person four feet is an offense sufficient to warrant the death penalty when the statute is open to another less strict interpretation. I conclude that the phrase carries away, as used in section 209, is undefined and meaningless; and that to hold that it encompasses defendant's acts is to misconstrue it violently.