State v. Guerrero

Second-degree kidnapping may be committed by asportation, taking the person from one place to another. ORS 163.225(1).

“[A]nother important factor in determining whether the defendant moved the victim ‘from one place to another’ is whether the movement served to limit the victim’s freedom of movement and increase the victim’s isolation.” State v. Walch, 346 Or 463, 475, 213 P3d 1201 (2009).

Defendant was convicted of second-degree kidnapping (ORS 163.225), menacing (ORS 163.190), strangulation, and fourth-degree assault, constituting domestic violence.  On appeal, Defendant argued the trial court erred in denying motions for judgment of acquittal for the kidnapping and menacing convictions because the evidence was legally insufficient to prove both charges.  Defendant asserted the State failed to prove he had the requisite intent for the crime of menacing. Further, Defendant contended the evidence for kidnapping was insufficient because Defendant argued asportation didn’t occur because the victim was not moved to a qualitatively different place when he dragged her from a parked motor home to his vehicle.   The State contended that the end place could be considered reasonably qualitatively different when the Defendant dragged the victim into the vehicle and, further, a reasonable jury could infer the intent to menace when considering the totality of the circumstances.Second-degree kidnapping may be committed by asportation, taking the person from one place to another, or confinement. ORS 163.225(1).  A defendant moves a person “from ‘one place’ to ‘another’ only when the defendant changes the position of the victim such that, as a matter of situation and context, the victim’s ending place is qualitatively different from the victim’s starting place.” State v. Sierra, 349 Or 506, 513, 254 P3d 149 (2010). “[A]nother important factor in determining whether the defendant moved the victim ‘from one place to another’ is whether the movement served to limit the victim’s freedom of movement and increase the victim’s isolation.” State v. Walch, 346 Or 463, 475, 213 P3d 1201 (2009). The Court found the evidence sufficient to support asportation because the motor home and Defendant’s vehicle were qualitatively different places and victim was isolated from aid when Defendant sequestered her in his vehicle. Further, Defendant’s entire course of conduct provided sufficient evidence to support the intent element of menacing. Affirmed.