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

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence of Asportation Here

Text: (6) The test on appeal for determining if substantial evidence supports a conviction is whether `a reasonable trier of fact could have found the prosecution sustained its burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.' ( People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576 [162 Cal. Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738, 16 A.L.R.4th 1255].) In making this determination, we `must view the evidence in a light most favorable to respondent and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.' ( Ibid. ) (7) The jury here applied the Daniels test to find that defendant moved Elizabeth a substantial distance and that this movement substantially increased her risk of physical injury over and above those to which such person is normally exposed in the commission of the crime of rape. Applying the same test, we conclude that the evidence of asportation in this case was sufficient to support the kidnapping conviction. Here, Elizabeth was forcibly moved 105 feet at night from the parking lot of a closed store to the other side of a wall located at the edge of the lot. She was forced to sit against the wall and beside a small tree, 34 feet from the street. The wall blocked the view of any passersby from the parking lot side, and the tree and the bushes at the end of the wall limited detection of Elizabeth from the street. While the area beyond the wall bordered on a two-lane street, it was undeveloped, and made up of dirt and rocks. Finally, while it was light enough for Elizabeth to observe defendant's actions in this area, and for defendant to be able to see the blood on Elizabeth's underwear, the two were located right next to each other. There is no evidence as to whether they were detectable from the street. The jury could reasonably have concluded that Elizabeth's forcible movement for this distance and under these circumstances was not merely incidental to the attempted commission of rape, and substantially increased her risk of harm. Thus, we cannot conclude as a matter of law that there was insufficient evidence of asportation to support the jury's verdict.