SERIES 1200 KIDNAPPING
F 1202 NOTES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
F 1202 Note 1 Kidnapping: For Ransom, Reward, Or Extortion—CALCRIM Cross-References And Research Notes
F 1202 Note 2 Kidnap For Ransom: Claim Of Right Inapplicable (PC 209)
F 1202 Note 3 Kidnapping For Extortion Does Not Require That Person Extorted Be Someone Other Than The Kidnap Victim (PC 209)
F 1202 Note 4 Kidnapping For Extortion: Definition Of “Official Act”
F 1202 Note 5 Kidnapping For Extortion: Whether PIN Code Constitutes Property
F 1202 Note 6 Aggravated Kidnapping: Substantially Increased Risk Of Psychological Harm Is Sufficient
F 1202 Note 7 Fraud Or False Promises As “Force Or Fear”
Return to Series 1200 Table of Contents.
F 1202 Note 1 Kidnapping: For Ransom, Reward, Or Extortion—CALCRIM Cross-References And Research Notes
CALCRIM Cross-References:
CALCRIM 1200 [Kidnapping: For Child Molestation]
CALCRIM 1201 [Kidnapping: Child or Person Incapable of Consent]
CALCRIM 1203 [Kidnapping: For Robbery, Rape, or Other Sex Offenses]
CALCRIM 1204 [Kidnapping: During Carjacking]
CALCRIM 1215 [Kidnapping]
Research Notes:
See CLARAWEB Forum, Kidnapping—Series 1200.
F 1202 Note 2 Kidnap For Ransom: Claim Of Right Inapplicable (PC 209)
In People v. Serrano (1992) 11 CA4th 1672, 1677-78, 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.
CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 9.53 n1.
F 1202 Note 3 Kidnapping For Extortion Does Not Require That Person Extorted Be Someone Other Than The Kidnap Victim (PC 209)
People v. Ibrahim (1993) 19 CA4th 1692, 1697.
CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 9.53 n2.
F 1202 Note 4 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 make some use of the public office. (People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 C4th 668.)
CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 9.53 n3.
F 1202 Note 5 Kidnapping For Extortion: Whether PIN Code Constitutes Property
People v. Kozlowski (2002) 96 CA4th 853, 867 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].)
CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 9.53 n5.
F 1202 Note 6 Aggravated Kidnapping: Substantially Increased Risk Of Psychological Harm Is Sufficient
People v. Nguyen (2000) 22 C4th 872, 886 held that psychological harm may be enough to support a conviction for aggravated kidnapping (PC 209(b)).
CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 9.51 n2.
F 1202 Note 7 Fraud Or False Promises As “Force Or Fear”
See FORECITE F 1203 Note 10.
