Opinion ID: 2600307
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence of Asportation for Simple Kidnapping

Text: The jury was instructed that the forced movement for simple kidnapping had to be for a substantial distance, that is, a distance more than slight or trivial. (CALJIC No. 9.50.) Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's determination that the forced movement in his case satisfied the substantial distance requirement under section 207, subdivision (a), as that requirement was defined at the time of his offenses. He directs this same challenge to the kidnapping conviction, the kidnapping-murder special circumstance, and the murder conviction insofar as it rests on a kidnapping-murder theory. Although we have concluded that the kidnapping conviction must be reversed because it was presented to the jury on both a legally adequate and a legally inadequate theory, we must nonetheless assess the sufficiency of the evidence to determine whether defendant may again be tried for the kidnapping offense. ( People v. Hayes (1990) 52 Cal.3d 577, 276 Cal.Rptr. 874, 802 P.2d 376.) [7] In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine `whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' ( People v. Davis (1995) 10 Cal.4th 463, 509, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 826, 896 P.2d 119.) Substantial evidence is evidence which is `reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.' ( People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576, 162 Cal.Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738.) In Caudillo, we held that the determining factor in the crime of simple kidnaping was the actual distance of the victim's movements. ( Caudillo, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 572, 146 Cal.Rptr. 859, 580 P.2d 274.) In 1974, we held that, forcibly dragging a victim for a distance of 75 feet outside her home, without considering any other factors was a distance insufficient to show that the movements were substantial. ( Brown, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 789, 114 Cal.Rptr. 426, 523 P.2d 226.) In 1980, in People v. Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at page 67, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468, we found a 90-foot movement insufficient as a matter of law for the reasons stated in Brown. Defendant committed the offenses in question in 1994. Accordingly, in determining whether there is sufficient evidence that the forcible movement in this case was for a substantial distance, we must apply the holdings in Brown and Green in light of Caudillo. (Martinez, 20 Cal.4th at p. 239, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 533, 973 P.2d 512.) Here, however, unlike the situation in Martinez, the record contains facts that satisfy the simple kidnapping asportation standard under the case law in effect in 1994. In reaching this determination, we need not resolve whether Wong voluntarily left the Club with defendant as she called out to her girlfriend. As the defendant and Wong walked outside, defendant, who was large and muscular, held both of Wong's arms, and he had forcibly and painfully grabbed the arm of a waitress earlier that evening while claiming he would take her to Las Vegas to marry her. We simply note that, although it appeared to Wong's friend that Wong left the Club voluntarily, the jury may have inferred that defendant used force or fear to propel Wong outside, and that she did not accompany him willingly at any point thereafter. The Bergen Brunswig's videotapes taken from its security cameras and the still photographs taken from those tapes captured some of defendant and Wong's movements after they left the Club. Taken at 1:23 a.m. on the morning of the murder, the first photograph captured an image of defendant and Wong walking through the company's north gate. The two appear to be walking side by side, but it is unclear whether they were holding hands or whether defendant's left hand was gripping Wong's right arm. On the other hand, a jury could reasonably find beyond a reasonable doubt that the second photograph, taken at 1:24, only six seconds later, depicts defendant forcibly pulling Wong away from the Club and towards her death in the company's lot. Wong's body was behind defendant's and her legs appear to be pulling backwards while her head was very close to defendant's neck and shoulder. Although defendant's left arm cannot be seen, a jury could reasonably conclude from the relationship between the two bodies and from the events that occurred thereafter that defendant was controlling Wong's movements with that arm and moving her forward against her will. [8] The surveillance cameras subsequently captured images of defendant and Wong in the area of the short flight of steps leading to the enclosure in which Wong was murdered. Defendant can be seen standing over Wong, walking backwards, and dragging her into the enclosure. [9] The distance between the area near the north gate depicted in the second photograph where defendant could be forcibly moving Wong away from the Club and the location of Wong's body inside the enclosure was 245 feet. Even if the victim's initial cooperation is obtained without force or the threat of force, kidnaping occurs if the accused `subsequently restrains his victim's liberty by force and compels the victim to accompany him further.' [Citations.] ( People v. Alcala (1984) 36 Cal.3d 604, 622, 205 Cal.Rptr. 775, 685 P.2d 1126.) Here, as in Alcala, defendant was a virtual stranger ( id. at p. 622, 205 Cal.Rptr. 775, 685 P.2d 1126), and the jury reasonably could infer that Wong did not voluntarily accompany defendant farther away from the Club once he began forcing her to move in that direction. The jury could reasonably determine that the second photograph depicts defendant forcibly moving Wong towards the enclosure in which he killed her, Accordingly, a reasonable jury could find that defendant forcibly moved Wong at least 245 feet. The Caudillo court impliedly held that movement of 200 feet could support a simple kidnapping conviction when it noted that its factual situation most nearly resembles those encountered in Brown (a movement of approximately 75 feet), Thornton (a movement within the confines of a single room), and Cotton (a movement within various rooms of a [barracks] and an additional 15 feet outside), than those found in Stanworth (a movement of a quarter of a mile), and Stender (a movement of 200 feet.) ( Caudillo, supra, 21 Cal.3d at pp. 574, 146 Cal.Rptr. 859, 580 P.2d 274.) [10] Accordingly, forcibly moving a victim a distance of 245 feet would support a simple kidnapping conviction at the time of defendant's offenses. We therefore conclude that sufficient evidence supports defendant's kidnapping conviction, his murder conviction under the kidnapping felony-murder theory, and the finding of a kidnapping-murder special circumstance.