Oregon Supreme Court 12-29-10
by: Abassos • December 29, 2010 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Kidnapping - Movement from One Place to Another
Today the Oregon Supreme Court, in State v. Sierra, recalibrated the crime of Kidnapping where the movement is within the same room or is incidental to another crime. Defendant was charged with Kidnapping I for pointing a crossbow at an employee of a convenience store who was outside at the time, ordering him inside and behind a desk in the rear of the store while threatening and then assaulting him. Defendant was also charged with Kidnapping II because two good samaritans came into the store to intervene and were ordered behind the desk as well.
A unanimous Supreme Court today overturns the two Kidnapping II convictions, finding that the victims were not taken "from one place to another" because they ended up in the same room in which they started and not in a qualitatively different place. Additionally, the movement was incidental to other crimes committed against them.
Two prior Oregon Supreme Court cases exemplify the two rules that (1) the movement must be from one place to a qualitatively different place and (2) the movement must not be incidental to another crime. In State v. Murray, the defendant stole a car by jumping into the driver's seat and pushing the victim over to the passenger seat, where she jumped out of the car and defendant drove away. There the movement from one seat to another was incidental to the vehicle theft. In State v. Walch, defendant attacked the victim in her driveway and forced her into the trunk of a car. There the movement was a short distance but it was qualitatively different and it was not incidental to another crime. In today's case, the secondary victims were moved within the same room, and forced to kneel. The room was not qualitatively different on one side as opposed to the other. And the change of body position was not a different space. Also, it is clear that the movement was incidental to the crimes of menacing and unlawful use of a weapon because the victims were moved so that defendant could point his weapon at all three victims at the same time.
The Court gives additional guidance in determining whether the starting and ending points are qualitatively different places:
- Minimal movement that effects little change in the defendant's position will generally not suffice - e.g., from standing to sitting or stepping to the side.
- The degree of force or threat is not generally relevant to the question of asportation.
- The degree to which the movement increases the defendant's control or isolation of the victim is only relevant to the extent that it demonstrates the qualitative difference between the starting place and the ending place.
The Court affirms the Kidnapping I conviction, including the additional element of that charge, that defendant's intent was to terrorize the employee, ie to fill him with intense fear or dread. The defendant tried to argue that his intent was to frighten but not to severely frighten. This is a tough argument though where defendant pointed a crossbow at the victim at close range, threatened his daughter, forced him to kneel in a close, bounded area and kicked him in the head.
