Opinion ID: 1172016
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Felony-murder (Kidnapping for Robbery)

Text: (17) Defendant urges that the felony-murder (kidnapping for robbery) special-circumstance finding (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)) must be set aside. He argues that, while he may have kidnapped Kevin and Laura in part for the purpose of robbing them, he had completed robbing Kevin prior to killing him. Defendant contends that because the intent to rob no longer existed at the time of the killing, the jury could not find the kidnapping-for-robbery special-circumstance allegation true even though the kidnapping was a continuing offense. Defendant's claim lacks merit. The statutory language requires that [t]he murder [be] committed while the defendant was engaged in ... [k]idnapping [for robbery]. No additional requirement exists that defendant, having completed the crime of robbery, harbor the intent to rob the victim again at the time of the killing. A victim forcibly transported without [his] consent is still `kidnaped' while the detention continues and an injury inflicted during detention is inflicted `in the commission of' the kidnaping. ( People v. Farmer (1983) 145 Cal. App.3d 948, 952 [193 Cal. Rptr. 788].) Because Kevin was still being detained at the time of his murder, he was killed while defendant was engaged in the commission of the kidnapping. This fact is sufficient to sustain the special circumstance finding. (Cf. People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 61 [164 Cal. Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468].) Accordingly, the felony-murder (kidnapping for robbery) special-circumstance finding must be sustained. V.