Opinion ID: 6215723
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Seizure Element

Text: ¶21 Recall that when the jury asked about the “parameters of kidnapping,” the trial court instructed the jury that “[t]he phrase ‘seizing and carrying’ is defined as ‘any movement, however short in distance.’” Garcia asserts that this instruction 10 allows a conviction even if the defendant has not seized the victim. More specifically, he asserts that the instruction lowers the bar for the prosecution because it makes “any movement” of the victim kidnapping. The People concede that the instruction omits the seizure requirement but contend the instruction is still accurate because the term “seizes” is necessarily subsumed within the word “carries.” We are not persuaded. ¶22 As a starting point, we decline to read the statute in a way that renders the term “seize” superfluous, noting we must strive to give it meaning as the General Assembly intended. McCoy, ¶ 38, 442 P.3d at 389. We also cannot disregard the fact that the statute lists the term “seizes” and the term “carries” separately and connects them with the conjunctive “and,” which denotes that they are distinct elements of the crime. ¶23 We evaluate the People’s contention that the elements are not distinct by examining the specific meanings of these two terms in the context of the second degree kidnapping statute. Because the statute does not define the terms “seizes” or “carries,” “we may consider a definition in a recognized dictionary.” Cowen v. People, 2018 CO 96, ¶ 14, 431 P.3d 215, 218–19. Dictionaries define “seize” to mean “to take possession of” or “to take hold of.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/seize [https://perma.cc/RGG58X6W]; see also, e.g., Seize, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (defining “seize” 11 as “[t]o place (someone) in possession”). “Possession,” in turn, means “the act of having or taking into control.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://merriamwebster.com/dictionary/possession [https://perma.cc/F3DU-VGRF]. The plain language of the second degree kidnapping statute, thus, requires that the defendant knowingly took possession of or had control over the victim. ¶24 Dictionaries define the term “carries” to denote movement or transportation. See, e.g., Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/carry [https://perma.cc/Z87R-H2BT] (defining carry as “to move while supporting” and “to transfer from one place (such as a column) to another”). And while the term often implies possession, this is not always the case. For instance, if Ann bumps into or pushes Tomas, she has moved him, but she may or may not have had possession or control over him. Thus, the People’s argument that the term “seizes” is necessarily subsumed within the word “carries” is unavailing. ¶25 And here, by completely omitting the concept of seizure, the trial court’s instruction can be understood to mean that a defendant completes the act of “seizing and carrying” by any and every act that displaces another person without consent or lawful justification, regardless of whether the defendant exercised or took control over that person. That is an incorrect statement of the law. 12 ¶26 Guided by this erroneous instruction, the jury could have convicted Garcia of second degree kidnapping even if it believed his sons’ testimony suggesting that Garcia never had control over Kaehne. More specifically, the jury could have convicted Garcia even if it believed Kaehne voluntarily travelled to Denver and was pushed or dumped out of the car after he punched Garcia. Put another way, when the jury asked: “Is it kidnapping if [the victim is] dumped and left behind,” the trial court’s erroneous supplemental instruction effectively told the jury that they could answer this question “yes.”