Opinion ID: 2570218
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Sufficiency of the evidence on the kidnapping charges

Text: Garcia was convicted of two counts of first-degree kidnapping with the use of a deadly weapon relating to the Fuel Injection Systems incident. Garcia argues that there is insufficient evidence to support those convictions under this court's holding in Wright v. State because, to convict a defendant of both robbery and kidnapping arising from the same criminal incident, the State must show that the movement of the victim or victims was beyond that required to complete the associated robbery. [5] When a party challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal in a criminal case, the standard of review is whether, viewing the evidence in a light favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable jury could have been convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [6] This court will not set aside a guilty verdict unless it determines that no rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. [7] In Wright, this court held that when a defendant is convicted of first-degree kidnapping and an associated offense, the kidnapping conviction will not stand if the movement of the victim was incidental to the associated offense and did not increase the risk of harm to the victim beyond that of the associated crime. [8] Garcia notes numerous cases with similar factual circumstances to the present case where the State either elected not to charge the defendants with kidnapping or where the jury did not return a guilty verdict. [9] Garcia fails, however, to address dress either the legal standards applicable to kidnapping or how the evidence was insufficient to meet those requirements. Under Nevada law, first-degree kidnapping is the willful seizing, confining, or carrying away of a live person. [10] While the language of NRS 200.310(1) does not include an asportation requirement, this court requires it when the kidnapping is incidental to an associated offense, such as robbery, that inherently involves the restraint of the victim. [11] To meet the asportation requirement when robbery is also charged, the movement of the victim must be over and above that required to complete the associated crime and must substantially increase the risk of harm beyond that necessarily present in the crime of robbery itself. [12] In the present case, the evidence presented at trial demonstrated that during the Fuel Injection Systems burglary, Garcia ordered the two victims outside the building to the back of a truck, where he held them for 15 minutes at gunpoint before finally taking them into the office, ordering them to lie facedown, and binding them with duct tape. The jury was properly instructed that the kidnapping offenses could not be incidental to the robberies. We conclude that based on these facts there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to conclude that Garcia committed first-degree kidnapping during the Fuel Injection Systems robbery.