State v. Ibabao

Under ORS 163.225, the asportation element of second degree kidnapping is not satisfied when the victim's movements are incidental to another crime or when moving a victim between rooms in a house, because their starting and ending locations are not qualitatively different.

Defendant and three others broke into a house at night and discovered five victims inside. The victims were corralled into one bedroom; the movement inside the house gave rise to kidnapping charges. Defendant was convicted of four counts of kidnapping in the first degree. Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court was in error when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence to prove the asportation element of kidnapping. In order to prove the asportation element, the State must prove that the taking of the victims was not incidental to another crime and that the victims’ starting and ending locations were qualitatively different from each other; moving victims between rooms in the same house is not sufficient. In the present case, Defendant only moved the victims between rooms in the same house; the movements were incidental to the robbery. The Court reversed Defendant’s kidnapping convictions and remanded for resentencing. Reversed and remanded.