Court Opinion

ID: 9686901
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:11:00.326597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:22.852280
License: Public Domain

J. H. Gillis, J.
(dissenting). I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court failed to instruct the jury properly. Among other things, the trial court stated the following:
"One kind of kidnapping requires the prosecutor to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was a seizure and a movement of a person to another place where the intent in that circumstance is to actually confine a person against his or her will. In that circumstance the prosecutor must prove it was a seizure and some actual movement, some actual asportation. The *731purpose of that asportation must be the confinement.” (Emphasis supplied.)
While not a model of clarity, the charge conveys the idea that the movement element must be, incidental to the commission of the kidnapping. This satisfies the Adams asportation standard. People v Widgren, 53 Mich App 375, 384; 220 NW2d 130 (1974).
I would affirm.