Opinion ID: 2611883
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Standard for Sufficiency of the Evidence of Asportation

Text: (2) Because section 208(d) proscribes kidnapp[ing] and not merely holding and detaining an individual, it must be construed to contain an asportation requirement. (See People v. Knowles (1950) 35 Cal.2d 175, 179-180 [217 P.2d 1]; People v. Macinnes (1973) 30 Cal. App.3d 838, 842-844 [106 Cal. Rptr. 589].) We now turn to the question of whether that asportation requirement is satisfied by the standard for section 207(a) simple kidnapping, or by section 209, subdivision (b) kidnapping for robbery, or aggravated kidnapping.
At the time of the crime here, [7] there existed two distinct standards of asportation for kidnapping, depending on whether the kidnapping was for robbery (aggravated kidnapping) under section 209, subdivision (b) (hereafter section 209(b)), or was a simple kidnapping under section 207(a). [8] (3) Kidnapping for robbery, or aggravated kidnapping, requires movement of the victim that is not merely incidental to the commission of the robbery, and which substantially increases the risk of harm over and above that necessarily present in the crime of robbery itself. ( People v. Daniels (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1119, 1139 [80 Cal. Rptr. 897, 459 P.2d 225, 43 A.L.R.3d 677]; In re Earley (1975) 14 Cal.3d 122, 127-128 [120 Cal. Rptr. 881, 534 P.2d 721].) These two aspects are not mutually exclusive, but interrelated. As for the first prong, or whether the movement is merely incidental to the crime of robbery, the jury considers the scope and nature of the movement. ( People v. Daniels, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 1131, fn. 5.) This includes the actual distance a victim is moved. However, we have observed that there is no minimum number of feet a defendant must move a victim in order to satisfy the first prong. ( People v. Daniels, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 1128 [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].) In addition, we have since Daniels, supra, analyzed the question of whether the movement was incidental to the commission of the underlying crime by considering the context of the environment in which the movement occurred. ( People v. Daniels, supra, 71 Cal.2d at pp. 1131, fn. 5, 1140; In re Crumpton (1973) 9 Cal.3d 463, 466 [106 Cal. Rptr. 770, 507 P.2d 74].) Thus, in Daniels, the defendants, in the course of robbing and raping three women in their own homes, forced them to move about their rooms for distances of 18 feet, 5 or 6 feet, and 30 feet respectively. ( People v. Daniels, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 1126.) We held that these brief movements were merely incidental to the commission of robbery. ( Id. at p. 1140.) We observed, Indeed, when in the course of a robbery a defendant does no more than move his victim around inside the premises in which he finds him  whether it be a residence, as here, or a place of business or other enclosure  his conduct generally will not be deemed to constitute the offense proscribed by section 209. Movement across a room or from one room to another, in short, cannot reasonably be found to be asportation `into another part of the same county.' (Pen. Code, § 207.) ( Ibid. ) In Daniels, we relied in part on our reasoning in Cotton v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 459 [15 Cal. Rptr. 65, 364 P.2d 241], which concluded that the defendants could not be charged with simple kidnapping under the facts of that case. ( People v. Daniels, supra, 71 Cal.2d at pp. 1129-1131, 1139.) We stated, however, We do not imply that the facts of Cotton [movement of the victim 15 feet] are controlling, i.e., that movements of the scope and nature of those in Cotton could not support a conviction under section 209 if the defendant's intent was to commit robbery. Such a case, when and if it arises, must be decided on its own facts. All we say here is that movements of the scope and nature of those in the case before us ... fall within the language of Cotton which excludes from the definition of kidnaping movements `incidental to' the underlying crime. (71 Cal.2d at p. 1131, fn. 5, some italics added.) Likewise, in In re Crumpton, supra, 9 Cal.3d 463, the victim was forcibly moved 20 to 30 feet behind a truck parked on the service station premises. ( Id. at p. 466.) We concluded that this movement did not satisfy the first part of the Daniels test, but was merely incidental to the crime of robbery. ( Ibid. ) We found [p]articularly relevant ... People v. Williams (1970) 2 Cal.3d 894 ..., in which we held a service station, including the adjacent outdoor areas, to be analogous to a place of business or enclosure within our meaning in Daniels. In Williams the victims were forced to move to several different sites on the service station grounds. If such conduct was insufficient to activate section 209, the movement in the present case is also inadequate for that purpose. ( Ibid. ) The second prong of the Daniels test refers to whether the movement subjects the victim to a substantial increase in risk of harm above and beyond that inherent in robbery. ( In re Earley, supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 131; People v. Lara (1974) 12 Cal.3d 903, 908, & fn. 4 [117 Cal. Rptr. 549, 528 P.2d 365].) This includes consideration of such factors as the decreased likelihood of detection, the danger inherent in a victim's foreseeable attempts to escape, and the attacker's enhanced opportunity to commit additional crimes. (See, e.g., People v. Lara, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 908 & fn. 4 [examples of such risk of harm include not only desperate attempts by the victim to extricate himself but also unforeseen intervention by third parties]; In re Earley, supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 132 [asportation gave rise to dangers, not inherent in robbery, that an auto accident might occur or that the victim might attempt to escape from the moving car or be pushed therefrom by [defendant]); cf. People v. Caudillo (1978) 21 Cal.3d 562, 574 [146 Cal. Rptr. 859, 580 P.2d 274] [aggravated kidnapping includes review of such factors as the defendant's motivation to escape detection and the possible enhancement of danger to the victim resulting from the movement.].) The fact that these dangers do not in fact materialize does not, of course, mean that the risk of harm was not increased. ( In re Earley, supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 132; People v. Lara, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 908.) (4) The asportation requirement for simple kidnapping is less stringent than that for aggravated kidnapping, and less clear. We have stated that certain factors other than the actual distance a victim is moved are not to be considered. ( People v. Caudillo, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 574.) However, we have resisted setting a specific number of feet as the required minimum distance, and have further required that the movement must be substantial in character, while offering little guidance as to what that term means. ( Id. at p. 573; People v. Stanworth (1974) 11 Cal.3d 588, 601 [114 Cal. Rptr. 250, 522 P.2d 1058].) As one Court of Appeal has observed, Jury confusion is understandable. Without a frame of reference, `substantial' has little or no meaning. ( People v. Daniels (1993) 18 Cal. App.4th 1046, 1053, fn. 5 [22 Cal. Rptr.2d 877].) For the reasons that follow in part II.B.3., we conclude that the asportation standard for kidnapping for rape is that applied to aggravated kidnapping. We first briefly review the relevant and decidedly nonlinear history of the simple kidnapping, kidnapping for robbery, and kidnapping for ransom, reward, or extortion statutes.
In People v. Knowles, supra, 35 Cal.2d 175, we held that the holds and detains language of former section 209 was a deliberate abandonment of the requirement of movement of the victim traditionally present in kidnapping. (35 Cal.2d at p. 180.) Thus, detention without asportation of a robbery victim was sufficient. ( Id. at pp. 179-181.) In 1951, section 209 was amended to provide that the holds or detains language applied only to kidnapping for ransom or extortion. That remains the law today, and hence kidnapping under section 209(a) has no asportation requirement. ( People v. Macinnes, supra, 30 Cal. App.3d at pp. 842-844.) However, section 209(b) kidnapping for robbery is committed only where the defendant kidnaps or carries away the victim. In People v. Chessman (1951) 38 Cal.2d 166 [238 P.2d 1001], we upheld the defendant's conviction for kidnapping for the purpose of robbery, with infliction of bodily harm, for which he had received the death penalty. ( Id. at pp. 172, 192-193.) The defendant had forced one victim to walk 22 feet at gunpoint from the car she was in to his car, and there committed sex crimes. ( Id. at p. 192.) We stated, It is the fact, not the distance, of forcible removal which constitutes kidnaping in this state. ( Id. at p. 192.) In People v. Wein (1958) 50 Cal.2d 383 [326 P.2d 457], we applied Chessman to uphold the defendant's convictions of kidnapping for robbery, with infliction of bodily harm, for which he also had received the death penalty. ( Id. at pp. 391, 399-400.) The defendant, in the course of raping and robbing several women within the confines of their homes, forced each to move either from one room to another or across a single room, for distances ranging from a few feet to more than 50 feet. ( Id. at pp. 391-393, 399-400.) We observed that the Legislature has been in session several times since the Chessman case was decided, and it has not seen fit to amend the kidnaping law to limit the rule we announced. If the section, as interpreted by this court, is regarded as too harsh, the remedy is for the Legislature to redefine kidnaping, and not for this court to engraft some uncertain distance limitation onto the plain language of the section. ( Id. at p. 400.) In Cotton v. Superior Court, supra, 56 Cal.2d 459, we implicitly declined to extend the Chessman/Wein rule to section 207 simple kidnapping. In Cotton, the AFL-CIO picketed a labor camp which housed certain farm workers. (56 Cal.2d at p. 461.) The picketers attempted to verbally persuade the farm workers to join their cause. ( Ibid. ) Fighting ensued during which one man was dragged 15 feet. ( Id. at pp. 461, 463-464.) We stated that the only movements that occurred [here] were those natural in a riot or assault.... All `asportation' ... would appear to be only incidental to the assault and rioting. ( Id. at p. 464.) We concluded that the Legislature could not have intended that every assault could also be prosecuted as kidnapping, so long as the slightest movement was involved. ( Id. at p. 465.) Where the movement is incidental to the alleged assault, section 207 should not apply. (56 Cal.2d at p. 465.) We issued a peremptory writ ordering the trial court to dismiss the charges of conspiracy to commit kidnapping, and kidnapping. ( Id. at pp. 460-461, 465.) In People v. Daniels, supra, 71 Cal.2d 1119, we abrogated the Chessman/Wein rule for kidnapping for robbery, relying in part on Cotton v. Superior Court, supra, 56 Cal.2d 459. (71 Cal.2d at pp. 1129-1131, 1139.) As noted earlier, in Daniels, the defendants in the course of robbing and raping three women in their own homes, forced them to move about their rooms for distances of 18 feet, 5 or 6 feet, and 30 feet respectively. ( Id. at p. 1126.) The jury fixed the penalty at death on the kidnapping counts. ( Id. at p. 1122.) We reversed the kidnapping convictions, observing that under the Chessman/Wein rule, `The criminologically nonsignificant circumstance that the victim was ... moved incident to the crime determines whether the offender lives or dies.' ( People v. Daniels, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 1138.) We held that the asportation required for kidnapping for robbery consisted of a movement of the victim that is not merely incidental to the commission of the robbery, and which substantially increases the risk of harm over and above that necessarily present in the crime of robbery itself. ( Id. at p. 1139.) In People v. Williams, supra, 2 Cal.3d 894, we stated, Although Daniels was directed toward a construction of the statute defining aggravated kidnaping (Pen. Code, § 209), it is clear that the considerations therein enunciated are applicable as well to simple kidnaping (Pen. Code, § 207). (2 Cal.3d at p. 901.) In People v. Stanworth, supra, 11 Cal.3d 588, however, we retreated from this position, and held that the Daniels test was not applicable to [simple] kidnaping charged as a violation of section 207 but only to charges of kidnaping for robbery bottomed on section 209, commonly referred to as aggravated kidnaping. ( Id. at p. 598.) We distinguished People v. Williams, supra , on the ground that  Williams involved a conviction of aggravated kidnaping under section 209 which was reduced by the court to simple kidnaping under section 207 in order to avoid the harsher penalty imposed by the former section.... Under these circumstances, we evaluated the conviction in the light of Daniels.  (11 Cal.3d at p. 599, fn. 11.) In Stanworth, supra, we observed that the `movement' factor of the Daniels rule is uniquely suited to section 209 and not to section 207, because section 209 kidnapping, by definition, involves the underlying offense of robbery. In contrast, kidnaping, as defined by section 207, may occur in the absence of another crime. Thus where only simple kidnaping is involved, it is clear that the victim's movements cannot be evaluated in the light of a standard which makes reference to the commission of another crime. ( People v. Stanworth, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 600, fn. omitted.) Rather, the determining factor in the crime of [simple] kidnaping is the actual distance of the victim's movements; and further, that the minimum movements necessary for the commission of the crime are present where the victim is forcibly taken `into another part of the same county'.... Finally, because the victim's movements must be more than slight ... or `trivial' ..., they must be substantial in character to constitute kidnaping under section 207. ( People v. Stanworth, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 601, italics in Stanworth; see People v. Brown (1974) 11 Cal.3d 784, 788-789 [114 Cal. Rptr. 426, 523 P.2d 226] [concluding that where a victim was taken throughout her house and then at most 75 feet outside the house, the asportation was trivial] & fn. 6 [Arbitrary boundaries established by buildings or other enclosures, ownership of property, fences, and other points of reference will themselves vary in size and distance. Thus the character of the victim's movements cannot be determined simply on the basis that the victim remained inside or was taken outside a particular area. (Italics added)].) We reiterated that to define the phrase into another part of the same county `in terms of a specific number of inches or feet or miles would be open to a charge of arbitrariness.' ( People v. Stanworth, supra, 11 Cal.3d at pp. 600-601, quoting People v. Daniels, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 1128; see People v. Daniels, supra, 18 Cal. App.4th at p. 1052 [error to instruct jury that as a matter of law 500 feet is a substantial distance].) [9] Thus, Stanworth relied on the absence of an associated crime to explain why Daniels was inapplicable to simple kidnapping. However, it noted that Cotton v. Superior Court, supra, 56 Cal.2d 459, which had invoked the simple kidnapping standard, had involved the associated crime of assault. ( People v. Stanworth, supra, 11 Cal.3d at pp. 599-600.) Stanworth itself went on to apply the simple kidnapping standard to asportations resulting in the associated crimes of rape and murder. ( Id. at pp. 602-603.) We subsequently offered an alternative reason why the Daniels test was inapplicable to section 207 kidnapping. We explained, `both Daniels, involving section 209 kidnaping, and Cotton ..., involving section 207 kidnaping, construe the term `kidnaping' to mean movements which are not merely incidental to associated crimes.' ... However, in view of the fact that ... `section 209 prescribes increased punishment when the kidnaping is for the purpose of ransom or robbery' ..., violation of section 209 requires not only that the asportation be not merely incidental to the associated crime of robbery (i.e., that there be a kidnaping) but also that it `substantially increase the risk of harm over and above that necessarily present in the crime of robbery itself.' ( In re Earley, supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 129, italics in original, fn. omitted.) Thus, in Earley, we relied on the punishment assigned by the Legislature to determine what the substantive element of asportation entailed. In People v. Caudillo, supra, 21 Cal.3d 562, overruled on other grounds in People v. Escobar (1992) 3 Cal.4th 740, 749-751 [12 Cal. Rptr.2d 586, 837 P.2d 1100], this court, while reiterating Stanworth 's language that the movement must be substantial in character, rejected consideration of certain factors other than actual distance in assessing the sufficiency of the evidence of asportation for simple kidnapping. In Caudillo, defendant forcibly moved a rape victim, Maria, for an  unspecified distance from the elevator to the storage room, and from the storage room to her apartment. ( People v. Caudillo, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 572, italics in original.) We concluded that this was not substantial movement within the meaning of Penal Code section 207. ( Ibid. ) We observed: The People seek to introduce considerations  other than actual distance  as determinative of what constitutes `sufficient movement' of the victim to constitute the offense of section 207 kidnapping. ( People v. Caudillo, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 574.) The People claimed we should consider Maria's movement substantial because defendant moved Maria to the storage room to avoid detection, thereby increasing her danger, and then waited 20 minutes before he moved her to her apartment. ( Ibid. ) We rejected this argument stating, Neither the incidental nature of the movement, the defendant's motivation to escape detection, nor the possible enhancement of danger to the victim resulting from the movement is a factor to be considered in the determination of substantiality of movement for the offense of [simple] kidnaping. ( Ibid. ) We concluded that the judgment of conviction of simple kidnaping must fall for lack of evidentiary support. ( Id. at p. 575.) (5) The issue we address in this case is whether the asportation standard for section 208(d) kidnapping is derived from that used for simple or aggravated kidnapping. Only one Court of Appeal opinion has significantly explored this issue. In People v. Bradley, supra, 15 Cal. App.4th 1144, a case relied on by the Court of Appeal in this case, the victim was moved 50 to 60 feet from the open street, and forcibly led around a building to the inside of a separate structure, an enclosed dumpster area. ( Id. at p. 1154.) The court first determined that the standard of asportation for section 208(d) was that for simple kidnapping. (15 Cal. App.4th at p. 1153.) It based this conclusion on the difference in severity in punishment under section 208(d) as opposed to the life sentence prescribed by section 209(b). (15 Cal. App.4th at pp. 1152-1153.) The court stated, Evidently, the more serious penalty of life imprisonment imposed in aggravated kidnapping is in large part responsible for the impetus to use the Daniels risk-related movement test. Therefore, since the Legislature added kidnapping with the intent to commit rape to section 208, and not section 209, and since the penalty is determinate and not life as found in aggravated kidnapping, we conclude kidnapping with intent to commit rape warrants the same test for movement as ... simple kidnapping. ( Id. at p. 1153.) Applying the section 207 simple kidnapping asportation test, the court then stated, distance, in and of itself, is not the only factor probative of asportation under sections 207 and 208(d). (15 Cal. App.4th at p. 1153.) Consideration must be given to the change in surroundings between the point of capture and destination. ( Ibid. ) A distance of 50 feet in the open desert is of far less importance to fulfilling the goal of a sexual perpetrator than 50 feet in the city where characteristics of location change much more quickly. ( Id. at p. 1154.) The court concluded that the 50-to-60-foot movement was not a trivial or inconsequential movement, in light of the boundaries which were traversed over this distance and the unlit and secluded nature of the destination providing the necessary environment to commit the targeted crime without interruption or detection.... [T]he inherent danger from sexual attack in the secluded dumpster area was considerably more than the public phone area. ( People v. Bradley, supra, 15 Cal. App.4th at p. 1154.) [10]
The parties articulate somewhat different tests for determining whether the evidence of asportation is sufficient under section 208(d). Defendant contends that we should adopt the Daniels test for all kidnappings which involve an `associated crime' such as kidnapping for rape under section 208(d). The `substantial movement' test should only be retained where there is no `associated crime.' [A]n exception to the `substantial distance' test could be developed for the rare case in which the forcible movement resulted in the complete isolation of the victim for a substantial period of time. The Attorney General, relying on People v. Bradley, supra, 15 Cal. App.4th 1144, argues that the section 207 simple kidnapping asportation standard should apply to section 208(d), but suggests expanding this test to include evaluation of both the distance and character of the movement. Such a test would consider the actual distance and any environmental changes resulting from the move, and whether those changes increase risk of danger to the victim by decreas[ing] the likelihood of detection, rescue or escape.... It would not require a substantial increase in the risk of harm to the victim. We discern little meaningful distinction between these two tests. In effect the parties' disagreement is not over whether the simple or aggravated kidnapping asportation standard should apply, but over whether the increase in risk of harm to the victim must be substantial. We conclude that defendant has the better argument, and that the two-part Daniels asportation test should apply to section 208(d) kidnapping for rape. As noted above, section 208(d) provides that If the person is kidnapped with the intent to commit rape, oral copulation, sodomy, or rape by instrument, the kidnapping is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 5, 8, or 11 years. This language is strikingly similar to section 209(b), or kidnapping for robbery, which provides that Any person who kidnaps or carries away any individual to commit robbery shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life with possibility of parole. Where a statute is framed in language of an earlier enactment on the same or an analogous subject, and that enactment has been judicially construed, the Legislature is presumed to have adopted that construction. ( People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 329 [256 Cal. Rptr. 401, 768 P.2d 1078].) Thus, in using language parallel to that of section 209(b), which has been construed to require the two-part Daniels asportation test, the Legislature undoubtedly intended to incorporate a similar asportation requirement into section 208(d). In reaching our conclusion, we are mindful of the fact that we have previously declined to extend the Daniels test to either simple kidnapping or a kidnapping involving an associated crime other than robbery. Rather, as demonstrated above, we have applied the section 207 simple kidnapping standard in cases involving asportation for purposes of committing associated crimes such as rape and murder, People v. Stanworth, supra, 11 Cal.3d at pages 602-603, and assault, Cotton v. Superior Court, supra, 56 Cal.2d at pages 463-465. However, in contrast to the section 207 language we construed in Stanworth, culpability under section 208(d) cannot occur in the absence of another crime, or an attempt to commit a crime. ( People v. Stanworth, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 600.) Rather, culpability under section 208(d) will always involve the associated crimes or attempted crimes of rape, oral copulation, sodomy, or rape by instrument. (§ 208(d).) Thus, the `movement' factor of the Daniels rule is uniquely suited to section 209 and section 208(d) because these forms of kidnapping by definition proscribe kidnapping for the purpose of committing a particular offense. (See People v. Stanworth, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 600.) We are also conscious of the fact that the only occasion in which the Legislature appears to have expressly adopted the Daniels risk of harm language is in section 209.5, which prohibits robbery of a vehicle or carjacking. The question arises, therefore, why, if the Legislature intended this risk of harm standard to apply to section 208(d), it did not use such explicit language here. We are guided by the fact that section 209.5 was enacted in October of 1993, or approximately three years after section 208(d). Within that time period, People v. Bradley, supra, 15 Cal. App.4th 1144, had been decided. As noted above, this case held that the asportation test for section 208(d) was that used for simple kidnapping. Thus, the Legislature may have concluded that more explicit guidance to the courts was necessary. The Legislature, of course, is deemed to be aware of statutes and judicial decisions already in existence, and to have enacted or amended a statute in light thereof. ( People v. Harrison, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 329; People v. Hall, supra, 8 Cal.4th at pp. 961-962.) Nor are we persuaded, as People v. Bradley, supra, 15 Cal. App.4th 1144, concluded, that we should continue to define the substantive asportation standard of a kidnapping statute solely on the basis of the punishment prescribed. Rather, our obligation is to construe the statute as a whole. We are disinclined to perpetuate[] dubious law for no better reason than that it exists.... ( Crowley v. Katleman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 666, 696 [34 Cal. Rptr.2d 386, 881 P.2d 1083] (dis. opn. of Arabian, J.).) Indeed, it is no longer clear that when the act of rape, oral copulation, sodomy, or rape by instrument is accomplished, the penalties between section 208(d), as we interpret it, and section 209 are that disparate. Rather, under the recently enacted section 667.61, when a defendant kidnapped the victim of the present offense and the movement of the victim substantially increased the risk of harm to the victim over and above that level of risk necessarily inherent in the underlying offense in subdivision (c), the punishment of the crime is enhanced by an indeterminate term of 25 years to life. (§ 667.61, subds. (a), (d)(2).) Thus, the standard of asportation for section 208(d) kidnapping requires that the movement of the victim be for a distance which is more than that which is merely incidental to the commission or attempted commission of rape, oral copulation, sodomy, or rape by instrument, and that this movement substantially increase the risk of harm to the victim over and above that necessarily present in the commission or attempted commission of these crimes. Because we interpret section 208(d) to incorporate the aggravated kidnapping asportation standard, we need not reach the question of whether Caudillo 's rejection of certain factors other than the actual distance traveled should be revisited. We recognize that Caudillo 's narrow approach might be subject to the criticism that it fails to appreciate that a primary reason forcible asportation is proscribed by the kidnapping statutes is the increase in the risk of harm to the victim that arises from the asportation. (See People v. Williams, supra, 220 Cal. App.3d at p. 1171 [danger sought to be prevented by simple kidnapping statute realized when victim, who was driving, abandoned moving vehicle to escape, causing car to crash with another]; People v. Stender, supra, 47 Cal. App.3d at p. 423 [200 feet becomes more a substantial distance when it is considered it accomplished the purpose of removing the victim from the ready help of her mother]; cf. People v. Ford (1966) 65 Cal.2d 41, 58 [52 Cal. Rptr. 228, 416 P.2d 132] [simple kidnapping `inherently dangerous to human life'].) For purposes of this case, however, we simply note that if a factual scenario similar to that in Caudillo arose today, it would most likely be prosecuted under section 208(d). Contrary to our language in Caudillo, this evaluation would include review of such factors as the defendant's motivation to escape detection, and the possible enhancement of danger to the victim resulting from the movement. ( People v. Caudillo, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 574.)