State v. Guerrero

Second-degree kidnapping may be committed by asportation, taking the person from one place to another, ORS 163.225(1), while a person commits the crime of menacing if by word or conduct the person intentionally attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury, ORS 163.190(1).

Appellant appeals denial of motion for judgement of acquittal on kidnapping and menacing charges, arguing the evidence legally insufficient to prove both charges because although asportation requires a qualitatively different place the motor home and jeep had similar locations and seclusion, while the intent element of menacing cannot be proven by evidence of the defendant’s assaultive conduct and no threats. The state responds that the end place could be considered reasonably qualitatively different either when the defendant dragged the victim to the shop or when he dragged her into the jeep and, further, a reasonable jury could infer the intent to instill fear when considering the totality of the circumstances. Second-degree kidnapping may be committed by asportation, taking the person from one place to another, ORS 163.225(1), while a person commits the crime of menacing if by word or conduct the person intentionally attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury, ORS 163.190(1). Important factors in considering asportation are the victim’s freedom of movement and degree of isolation, because the jeep was mobile and the victim more isolated, asportation occurred. Further, a defendant’s entire course of conduct may be evidence of intent to instill fear. Affirmed.