Return to CALJIC Part 9-12 – Contents
F 9.53 n1 Kidnap For Ransom: Claim Of Right Inapplicable (PC 209).
In People v. Serrano (92) 11 CA4th 1672, 1677-78 [15 CR2d 305], the court held that the claim of right defense, which applies to a charge of theft, does not apply to the crime of kidnap for ransom.
F 9.53 n2 Kidnapping For Extortion Does Not Require That Person Extorted Be Someone Other Than The Kidnap Victim (PC 209).
See People v. Ibrahim (93) 19 CA4th 1692, 1697 [24 CR2d 269].
F 9.53 n3 Kidnapping For Extortion: Definition Of “Official Act.”
PC 209 [obtaining of an official act of a public officer induced by wrongful use of force or fear] requires definition of “official act” as actions taken in an official capacity that makes some use of the public office. (People v. Mayfield (97) 14 C4th 668 [60 CR2d 1].)
F 9.53 n4 Aggravated Kidnapping: Substantially Increased Risk Of Psychological Harm Is Sufficient.
(See FORECITE F 9.51 n2.)
F 9.53 n5 Kidnapping For Extortion: Whether PIN Code Constitutes Property.
People v. Kozlowski (2002) 96 CA4th 853,867 [117 CR2d 504] held that a PIN code is property because it implies the right to use the access code–and to access the funds in the related bank account by means of that code. “The fact that a PIN code is intangible property does not preclude a finding that it constitutes property within the meaning of our extortion statute.” (Id. at 2535; see also Commonwealth v. Baldwin (2001) 754 NE2d 121, 122, 124 [one who extracts a PIN code by threatening means commits extortion].)
