Unconstitutional Vagueness Challenge to Aggravated Kidnapping Charge (PC 209) based on Johnson v. United State (2015) 135 S.Ct. 2551 [Johnson]
October 1st, 2018
This post discussed the applicability of Johnson to inherently dangerous second degree felony murder. The same analysis could be applied to aggravated kidnapping per PC 209 which defines the required movement in terms of “risk of harm to the victim.” The Authority section of CC 1203 also states “Movement Must Substantially Increase Risk of Harm to […]
Tags: CC 1203, Kidnapping for Robbery
No Requirement That The Movement Must “Substantially Increase Risk Of Harm” To The Victim
September 11th, 2015
The Authority section of CC 1203 also states “Movement Must Substantially Increase Risk of Harm to Victim,” citing People v. Dominguez (2009) 39 Cal. 4th 1141. However, the Legislature in 1997 rewrote the aggravated kidnapping statute to delete the requirement that the movement must substantially increase the risk of injury to the victim over and […]
Tags: CC 1203, Kidnapping for Ransom, Kidnapping for Robbery
Kidnapping: Substantial Distance Is Merely One Of Several Factors To Consider
March 10th, 2014
People v. Bell (2009)179 Cal. App. 4th 428, held that the wording of a portion of CC 1215 was erroneous. “Without further explanation of what distance is ‘merely incidental’ to the associated crime, a jury could easily interpret the instruction to require a jury to acquit a defendant of kidnapping because the movement […]
Tags: CC 1215, Kidnapping for Robbery