Court Opinion

ID: 9848019
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:11:25.415926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:55.035765
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE ROVIRA
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
In People v. Bridges, 199 Colo. 520, 612 P.2d 1110 (1980), the court adopted a new rule to be applied in cases in which a defendant is charged, on the basis of a single criminal episode, with both first-degree sexual assault under section 18-3-402(1)(a), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Yol. 8), and first-degree kidnapping under section 18-3-301(1)(a), C.R.S. 1973 (now in 1978 Repl. Vol. 8). The Bridges majority stated that the first-degree kidnapping statute could not be used in such cases to secure enhanced punishment for conduct which “amounts in substance” only to first-degree sexual assault. The majority imposed a “restrictive scope” on the extent to which a victim’s forced submission to first-degree sexual assault, as defined in section 18-3-402(1)(a), could constitute a “concession” within the meaning of section 18-3-301(1)(a).
In interpreting the holding in Bridges, the majority here has stated that “the language ‘to make any concession’ in the first-degree kidnapping statute does not include submission of a victim to actual application of physical force or physical violence as set forth in the first-degree sexual assault statute, section 18-3-402(1)(a).” As a result of this interpretation of Bridges, I conclude that, as a practical matter, even when a first-degree sexual assault is accompanied by substantial movement of the victim by the assailant, conviction for first-degree kidnapping is not possible.
Through its analysis of the phrase “to make any concession,” the majority has in effect held that a defendant who commits a first-degree sexual assault may also be found guilty of first-degree kidnapping only in those cases in which he has used words such as “I will let you go if you do what I tell you” or “I will kill you unless you do what I tell you.” In my view, the specific intent to force the victim to make a concession in order to secure her release, necessary for a conviction under section 18-3-301(1)(a), need not be established solely by such direct evidence. It may be circumstantially established by the acts of the defendant which the victim perceives as demanding a concession. Specific intent is ordinarily in-ferable from the facts, and proof thereof is necessarily by circumstantial evidence. Johnson v. People, 174 Colo. 413, 417, 484 P.2d 110, 112 (1971); Peterson v. People, 133 Colo. 516, 297 P.2d 529 (1956).
In Bridges, the court gave great weight to the twoprong test set out in People v. Daniels, 71 Cal.2d 1119, 459 P.2d 225, 80 Cal. Rptr. 897 (1969). That test raised the questions of whether the movement of the victim substantially increased the risk of harm over and above that necessarily presenting the crime itself and of whether the movement was incidental to the commission of the crime.
*9Applying the California test to the case sub judice, there can be little doubt that the movement of the victim substantially increased her risk of harm and that it was more than incidental to the crime. The California Supreme Court in People v. Thornton, 11 Cal.3d 738, 523 P.2d 267, 114 Cal. Rptr. 467 (1974), applied the Daniels test as follows:
“In the incident involving Eileen S. defendant forced his way into the victim’s car and, seizing her around the throat with his arm, informed her that he wanted her money. Rather than carrying out the robbery at that location, however, defendant started the car and drove the victim several blocks — steering with one hand while keeping her pinioned to the seat by means of his arm around her throat. After parking the car defendant took the victim’s money and then proceed [ed] with a sexual assault upon her.
“In the incident involving Ottilia J. defendant approached the victim from the rear while she was standing outside a tavern, held a pistol at her back, and ordered her to walk down the street with him. He walked her thus at gunpoint approximately one block to a car parked behind a service station and forced her to enter it. There he ordered her to disrobe and, when she had done so, took money from her purse. Then defendant commences a sexual assault which lasted several hours.
“It is clear that the asportation of the victim in each of these cases was not ‘merely incidental to the commission of the robbery’ and that such movement ‘substantially increase [d] the risk of harm over and above that necessarily present in the crime of robbery itself.’ The fact that in each case defendant chose to consummate the robbery at a location remote from the place of initial contact does not render the subsequent asportation ‘merely incidental’ to the crime, for it is the very fact that defendant utilized substantial asportation in the commission of the crime which renders him liable to the increased penalty of section 209 if that asportation was such that the victim’s risk of harm was substantially increased thereby. Clearly, any substantial asportation which involves forcible control of the robbery victim such as that occurring in this case exposes her to grave risks of harm to which she would not have been subject had the robbery occurred at the point of initial contact.” Id., 11 Cal.3d at 767-768, 523 P.2d at 286-287, 114 Cal. Rptr. at 486-487 (footnote omitted).
The majority in Bridges attempts to distinguish People v. Molina, 41 Colo. App. 128, 584 P.2d 634 (1978), on the grounds that in that case “the defendant warranted, and the victim perceived, that her freedom was dependent upon her submission to the sexual assault.” In my view, what the defendant did in this case fully supports the conclusion that his acts, without saying more, were of such a nature that the victim could perceive that her freedom and safety were dependent on her submission to his demands.
*10In People v. Hines, 194 Colo. 284, 572 P.2d 467 (1978), this court upheld a first-degree sexual assault and a first-degree kidnapping conviction on analoguous facts. In Hines the defendant hid in the victim’s car and, when she got in, placed a knife to her throat and told her to drive away. During the drive, he threatened and sexually assaulted her. This court, in affirming the conviction for first-degree kidnapping, and in response to the defendant’s argument that the words “any concession” or “anything of value” are vague and overbroad and that the first-degree kidnapping statute is indistinguishable from the second-degree kidnapping, said:
“An essential element of due process is that a statute defining a crime state its requirements with reasonable clarity. People v. Blue, 190 Colo. 95, 544 P.2d 385 (1975); People v. Cardwell, 181 Colo. 421, 510 P.2d 317 (1973). However, the appellant has failed to meet his burden of proving this statute unconstitutional. See People v. Blue, supra. The instant statute is sufficiently definite to give reasonable notice of the proscribed conduct to one who would avoid its penalties, to guide the trial judge in its application, and to guide counsel in defending one charged with its violation. There is no requirement that every term used in a statute be defined, especially when the words employed are in common usage and readily understood. People v. Blue, supra.
“The appellant further argues that the first-degree kidnapping statute, supra, is indistinguishable from the second-degree kidnapping statute (section 18-3-302, C.R.S. 1973) and therefore equal protection requirements are violated. However, it is only where the same criminal conduct is proscribed by both statutes that such a constitutional infirmity exists. People v. Hulse, 192 Colo. 302, 557 P.2d 1205 (1976); People v. Calvaresi, 188 Colo. 277, 534 P.2d 316 (1975). That situation does not exist here. First-degree kidnapping occurs only if the kidnapper intends ‘to force the victim or any other person to make any concession or give up anything of value in order to secure a release . . . .’ Section 18-3-301(1), C.R.S. 1973. This element is not required for second-degree kidnapping; therefore, the statutes are clearly distinguishable.” Id., 194 Colo. at 288, 572 P.2d at 470.
The only pertinent difference between the facts in Hines and those in the case at bar is that, in Hines, the defendant articulated his threat that the victim would have to comply with his demands in order to survive, while, in this case, the defendant used force to impose his will on the victim and did not articulate his demand or threat in words similar to those used by the defendant in Hines. I would follow the rationale of Hines, and therefore affirm both the conviction for first-degree sexual assault and for first-degree kidnapping.