Court Opinion

ID: 9724912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:19:58.002331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:07.780036
License: Public Domain

WHITE, P. J.
I respectfully dissent. Reviewing the reporter’s transcript, it appears at page one that the prosecution without objection amended information No. Cr. 9924 prior to selection of the jury. Count II was dismissed. Count IV, alleging that appellant kidnaped Angela Schaper (Pen. Code, § 207), was amended to allege that appellant did “. . . forcibly attempt to steal, take . . . Angela Schaper, in the County of Monterey, State of California, and did take the said Angela Schafer into another part of said Monterey County,” a violation of Penal Code sections 664, 207.1
On page 76 of the transcript it appears that the clerk read information No. Cr. 9924, including count IV as amended, to the trial jury immediately prior to the prosecution’s opening statement. As far as I am able to determine upon review of the record, this is the only instance during the entire trial wherein the jury heard the phrase “into another part of the [same or] said Monterey County.” Neither counsel in closing summation mentioned the phrase or adequately explained, in my opinion, its factual/legal significance in light of the evidence.2 The court’s instructions in relevant part pass muster in light of defense counsel’s failure to request additional instructions elucidating the phrase. It appears at page 277 of the transcript that the court charged the jury that “[t]he crime of attempted kidnaping requires the specific intent to commit the crime of kidnaping.” Thereafter, on page 281, it appears that the jury received per the court’s instructions (CALJIC 9.19 (1979 rev.) Kidnaping—No Other Underlying Crime) a definition of “simple” kidnaping defining the element of asportation as “. . . the movement of such other person was for a substantial distance, that is, a distance *55more than slight or trivial.” (In due course, also, the court properly instructed on the law of attempt (CALJIC 6.00, Attempt-Defined; CALJIC No. 6.01, Abandonment of Attempt-When Not a Defense; and CALJIC No. 6.02, Abandonment of Attempt-When a Defense.)
Appellant, of course, does not assert instructional error. While arguably incomplete, the court’s instructions were nevertheless proper. From the instructions received, I presume that the jury was able to extrapolate and therefore understood that the crime of attempted kidnaping requires the specific intent to forcibly move or take a person against their will for a substantial distance, that is, a distance more than slight or trivial. Insofar as I am able to determine from the record, however, the jury was never informed in argument or advised per instructions as regards the nexus between the concept of “substantial distance” embodied in the instructions and the charging allegation (in the phraseology of Pen. Code, § 207) “and did take the said Angela Schaper into another part of said Monterey County.” In light of the undisputed factual context of this case, the factfinder’s understanding of this link, I think, was essential in arriving at a truthful verdict.
As heretofore noted, prior to undertaking the state’s burden of proof the record reflects (fn. 1, ante) that the assistant district attorney realized that “simple” kidnaping is not always that “simple.”3 This case serves to illustrate.
There is no question but that appellant at least “intended to forcibly move or take” Miss Schaper from her bedroom to her residence’s front door. His actions subsequent to his words “Don’t say anything. Let’s go,” clearly demonstrated that intent. He literally carried out that intent at the point of a knife in his victim’s back. Appellant thereby feloniously assaulted Miss Schaper with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a).) Under California case precedents, however, appellant did not forcibly move or take Miss Schaper a “substantial distance” or “into another part of the same county” within the meaning of “simple” kidnaping as defined per the court’s instructions and/or Penal Code section 207. Undoubtedly contrary to the expectations of young Miss Schaper and that of her mother, our law views her forceful “asportation” at appellant’s hands as being “slight” or “insubstantial.”4 In People v. Thornton (1974) 11 Cal.3d 738 [114 *56Cal.Rptr. 467, 523 P.2d 267] (cert. den., 420 U.S. 924 [43 L.Ed.2d 393, 95 S.Ct. 1118], overruled on other grounds, 25 Cal.3d 684 [160 Cal.Rptr. 84, 603 P.2d 1]) (cited in the majority opn. at p. 50) the victim was sexually assaulted within the physical confines of a single room at a laundromat. The asportation involved was held not to be “into another part of the same county” within the meaning of section 207, “simple” kidnaping. (Id., at p. 767.) In the case at bench, appellant limited the asportation of his victim to the physical confines of her home. Consequently, the prosecution reasonably concluded that appellant could not be “convicted of 207.” (See fn. 1, ante, p. 55.) While the Stender court (People v. Stender, supra, at p. 421) correctly, I think, points out that arbitrary physical boundaries is not the sole factor when assessing whether the victim’s movement was over a “substantial distance,” I think that in the factual posture of this case, it is a determining factor. In any case apparently our law remains as stated in footnote 9 at page 129 in In re Earley (1975) 14 Cal.3d 122 [120 Cal.Rptr. 881, 534 P.2d 721], where it is stated: “Section 207, of course, differs from section 209 in that violation can occur in the absence of an ‘associated crime.’ (Stanworth, at p. 601; see also People v. Brown [1974] 11 Cal.3d 784, 787 [114 Cal.Rptr. 426, 523 P.2d 226]; People v. Apo [1972] 25 Cal.App.3d 790, 797 [102 Cal.Rptr. 242].) When an ‘associated crime’ is involved, there can be no violation of section 207 unless the asportation is more than incidental to the commission of that crime. (Cotton v. Superior Court, supra, 56 Cal.2d 459 [15 Cal.Rptr. 65, 364 P.2d 241].)” (In re Earley, supra, at p. 129, fn. 9.) On this record, I would think that appellant’s felonious assault with a deadly weapon upon Miss Schaper constitutes an “associated crime” (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)) precluding a finding of simple kidnaping.
In my view, then, the jury’s verdict in count IV finding appellant guilty of attempted kidnaping reflects their implied finding that appellant specifically intended to carry Miss Schaper a substantial distance, i.e., a distance beyond her residence’s front door sufficient to be more than “incidental” to his “associated” felonious assault upon her so as to be “into another part of the same county.” My expressed doubts that counsel’s arguments and the court’s instructions did not fully alert the jury to the complexities of “simple” kidnaping notwithstanding, I presume, as required on review, that the jury impliedly found that appellant harbored the last above-stated specific intent. I, then, do not ask myself whether I believe the evidence at trial established the said specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead I ask the only relevant question, whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the said essential specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt? (Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 318-319 [61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573, 99 S.Ct. 2781], rehg. den., 444 U.S. 890 [62 L.Ed.2d 126, 100 S.Ct. 195].) In *57answering that question, of course, I presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. (People v. Mosher (1969) 1 Cal.3d 379, 395 [82 Cal.Rptr. 379, 461 P.2d 659]; People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576 [606 P.2d 738, 16 A.L.R.4th 1255].)
My colleagues applying the identical standard of review conclude in effect that the jury could, from the evidence, reasonably find appellant intended to carry or move Miss Schaper a substantial distance beyond her front door, or as the majority succinctly states: “the jury reasonably concluded that appellant had the specific intent to kidnap Miss Schaper.” (Majority opn., at p. 49.) The majority reasons “that the jury reasonably believed that appellant would have completed the kidnap of Miss Schaper if he had not heard her mother upstairs.” (Majority opn., at p. 49.) I disagree. Upon review of the entire record, I conclude that there is no basis in the evidence for any rational trier of fact to infer or find that appellant abandoned an intention to forcibly carry or take Miss Schaper outside of her home. In truth, there is no evidence reasonably inferring that appellant ever intended to kidnap his assault victim within the meaning of Penal Code section 207. Viewed in the abstract, I would think that there were only three possible states of mind relevant to “section 207” “simple” kidnaping that appellant could have acted out, so to speak, as he moved his frightened victim against her will. Appellant’s mind set would either be (1) release and leave behind his victim at the front door, which, of course, he did, or (2) move or “carry” her a substantial distance beyond the door, which concededly he did not do, or (3) the thought never entered his mind until he reached the door and released her.
Upon painstaking consideration of the entire surrounding circumstantial evidence, I conclude that the only conclusion that any rational trier of fact could reasonably reach is that appellant did exactly no less than what he intended to do and no more. Further, the entire evidence will not support as being reasonable the belief attributed to the jury by the majority, i.e., that the sound of the mother’s footsteps upstairs when heard by appellant foiled the kidnap of Miss Schaper. There is no direct evidence that appellant heard the mother’s footsteps upstairs. In her entire testimony and that portion specifically relating that she “heard the bathroom door open” which to her meant “my mom woke up, . . .” Miss Schaper never so much as intimated that appellant heard the mother’s footsteps upstairs. I hold the only reasonable inference from the victim’s testimony is that appellant was in the act of leaving the apartment prior to the time or as she heard her mother stirring upstairs. Miss Schaper testified on redirect examination “[w]e just walked downstairs and he opened the door and I heard my mom get up and he just walked out the door.” She repeated the sequence on recross-exam*58ination; “[a]s he was opening the door I heard my mom get up. Then he walked out.” Appellant, she stated, did not “cut” her, “molest,” or make any sexual advances during the entire incident. He did not say anything as he left. I do not find in Miss Schaper’s testimony any reasonable inference that awareness of the mother walking upstairs “interrupted” an “unequivocal act toward kidnaping ...” Angela Schaper. Particularly is this the case when the evidence is clear that appellant knew that Ms. Schaper, the mother, was awake and aware of his unlawful presence before he even entered the daughter’s bedroom. Ms. Sharon Schaper testified that she was awakened by a hand on her leg (she thought it was her daughter’s), “turned over” to see appellant walk over and open her bedroom door and leave. She testified that as he left he told her to “go back to sleep.” Naturally, she rejected his suggestion; she awakened her “boy friend,” “Gary,” ran into the bathroom, there she “grabbed” her housecoat, determined in a glance that her daughter was not in her bedroom, started down the stairs when Angela “came running up the stairs to me.” Under these shown circumstances I find it wholly irrational that any reasonable trier of fact would believe that but for the mother’s footsteps appellant would have forced young Schaper to accompany him to his next destination, i.e., the Peterson’s nearby apartment front door.
I would reverse the attempted kidnaping judgment in count IV. Simply stated, the undisputed evidence is so weak that it undermines confidence in any inference pointing to guilt of attempted kidnaping. Consequently, I would hold at law the evidence insufficient to constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Hall (1964) 62 Cal.2d 104, 112 [41 Cal.Rptr. 284, 396 P.2d 700].) Obviously the victim’s rights are not adversely affected by reversing a judgment bottomed on a finding that should be disaffirmed as a matter of law. Likewise both the state’s and the defendant’s interests are equally best served.
Further, I respectfully dissent from my colleagues’ view equating the need to find the knife to the need to find the gun in New York v. Quarles (1984) — U.S. — [81 L.Ed.2d 550, 558, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 2633]. Rather than “split hairs,” to paraphrase O’Conner, L, I would confine the “public safety exception” to the Miranda rule to a factual context of a firearm in places of public at large accommodation similar to that in which the “exception” was born. In any case, my view of our society is not as yet such that I would think that anyone finding the “Schaper’s recently stolen kitchen knife” would constitute a serious immediate threat to the public’s safety. I think that such knives are readily accessible in the home quite apart from appellant’s conduct. Given the fact that three of the apartments in the complex were burglary or attempted burglary sites, the likelihood is that the knife, if not recovered by police search, would be found by law-abiding *59residents, if not victims, of the immediate area intent upon helping the police preserve evidence of the crimes. I would hold that appellant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was violated5 but find that the error admitting his admission that “he had already gotten rid of it” (see majority opn. at p. 51) could have no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the trial. Beyond a reasonable doubt the error was harmless. (See People v. Murtishaw (1981) 29 Cal.3d 733, 756 [175 Cal.Rptr. 738, 631 P.2d 446], cert. den., 455 U.S. 922 [71 L.Ed.2d 464, 102 S.Ct. 1280].) It was overkill to even introduce the statement. Consequently, the cost to the government had the court properly excluded the statement would have been nil.
On the other hand, to sanction the court’s order admitting appellant’s admission under the rubric of “public safety exception” to Miranda I think needlessly erodes the privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Constitution to each of us alike whether we be obvious criminals or innocent criminal suspects.

Moving to amend, the assistant district attorney stated “[a]nd in Count IV, since the victim was not taken any further than out of her own apartment, I don’t think under the case law that the defendant can be convicted of 207, but could be convicted of an attempted 207.” In light of the fact that victim Angela Schaper and Sharon Schaper, the mother, ' testified at trial precisely as they did at the preliminary examination hearing, I conclude that the People’s representative realized that additional evidence relative to appellant’s intent to kidnap would not be presented. In a sense, then, it appears that the prosecution’s thinking was “while the defendant didn’t kidnap, it’s worth a ‘try’ to amend to allege ‘attempted kidnapping.’ But of course, [o]ur courts are not gambling halls but forums for the discovery of the truth.” (Peters, J. in People v. St. Martin (1970) 1 Cal.3d 524, 533 [83 Cal.Rptr. 166, 463 P.2d 390].)

The prosecution argued: “[w]e are not saying he was able to move her a great distance, but he was attempting to move her a great distance. And that’s why it’s charged as an attempt.”
Defense counsel argued “[t]here is no indication whatsoever that he was attempting to kidnap her, or to take her out of the house.”

The “complexity” of the law of kidnaping (see People v. Stender (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 413, 422 [121 Cal.Rptr. 334]) where the court concluded: “Thus, we are led in circles.”

In People v. Stanworth (1974) 11 Cal.3d 588, 598-601 [114 Cal.Rptr. 426, 523 P.2d 226], our Supreme Court, opinion by Sullivan, J., unanimously rejected an invitation to extend analysis of Daniels (People v. Daniels (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1119 [80 Cal.Rptr. 897, 459 P.2d 225, 43 A.L.R.3d 677]) aggravated kidnaping for robbery (Pen. Code, § 209) to “simple” kidnaping (Pen. Code, § 207). Consequently, no cognizable question exists as to whether the use of the knife substantially increased the risk of harm to the victim. (Id., at pp. 599-601.)

Respondent’s brief filed before Quarles concedes at page 35 that there was Miranda error.