Opinion ID: 844288
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Sufficiency of evidence of kidnapping

Text: Defendant contends his four convictions for kidnapping to commit robbery in connection with the Watt Avenue crimes should be reversed because there was insufficient evidence of asportation. We disagree. On appeal, an appellate court deciding whether sufficient evidence supports a verdict must determine whether the record contains substantial evidencewhich we repeatedly have described as evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid valuefrom which a reasonable jury could find the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Hovarter, supra, 44 Cal.4th at pp. 996-997, italics omitted; see generally Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 324 [61 L.Ed.2d 560, 99 S.Ct. 2781].) We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. ( People v. Kraft, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1053.) (20) At the time of the crimes, [20] kidnapping for robbery, or aggravated kidnapping, required movement of the victim that (1) was not merely incidental to the commission of the robbery, and (2) substantially increased the risk of harm over and above that necessarily present in the crime of robbery itself. (§ 209, subd. (b); In re Earley (1975) 14 Cal.3d 122, 127 [120 Cal.Rptr. 881, 534 P.2d 721]; People v. Daniels (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1119, 1139 [80 Cal.Rptr. 897, 459 P.2d 225]; cf. People v. Dominguez (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1141, 1149-1155 [47 Cal.Rptr.3d 575, 140 P.3d 866] [discussing asportation element of kidnapping for the purpose of rape].) These two elements are not mutually exclusive but are interrelated. ( People v. Rayford (1994) 9 Cal.4th 1, 12 [36 Cal.Rptr.2d 317, 884 P.2d 1369]; see also People v. Martinez, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 232-233.) With regard to the first prong, the jury considers the scope and nature of the movement, which includes the actual distance a victim is moved. ( People v. Martinez, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 233; People v. Rayford, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 12; People v. Daniels, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 1131, fn. 5.) There is, however, no minimum distance a defendant must move a victim to satisfy the first prong. ( Daniels, at pp. 1128-1129; Rayford, at p. 12; Martinez, at p. 233.) `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 [the underlying crime]. [Citations.] 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. [Citations.] The fact that these dangers do not in fact materialize does not, of course, mean that the risk of harm was not increased.' ( People v. Martinez, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 233, quoting People v. Rayford, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 13-14.) Here, the evidence adduced at trial reveals that when defendant first encountered McDonald's manager Stanly Zaharko, he took Zaharko at gunpoint past the front counter area of the closed restaurant, back through the cooking area, until they reached the restaurant's safe. From there, defendant walked Zaharko from the safe into the back of the restaurant, encountering the three other employees. Defendant then instructed the four to head downstairs to the basement. [21] There, defendant ordered them into the freezer, where the temperature was approximately 20 degrees. Once everyone was inside, defendant shut and locked the door. After waiting approximately 10 minutes to allow the robber time to take whatever he wanted and leave, Zaharko used a fire ax located inside the freezer to break through the door. Zaharko estimated defendant forcibly moved him in the neighborhood of a hundred and fifty feet, two hundred feet, and that the other three employees were moved about eighty or ninety feet. As in Daniels, defendant's forcible movement of the victims was limited to movement inside the premises of the Watt Avenue McDonald's ( People v. Daniels, supra, 71 Cal.2d at pp. 1126, 1140), but unlike in Daniels, the movement here took Zaharkoand ultimately the other victimsfrom the front of the store, down a hidden stairway, and into a locked freezer. Under these circumstances, we cannot say the scope and nature of this movement was merely incidental to the commission of the robbery. Additionally, the movement subjected the victims to a substantially increased risk of harm because of the low temperature in the freezer, the decreased likelihood of detection, and the danger inherent in the victims' foreseeable attempts to escape such an environment. On this record, then, we conclude sufficient evidence of asportation supports defendant's convictions of aggravated kidnapping.