State v. Soto

Under ORS 163.225, a person may commit kidnapping in either of two ways: by taking a victim “from one place to another,” or by “secretly confin[ing]” the victim in a place where the victim is unlikely to be found, and under ORS 137.123(5)(a), a consecutive sentence is proper if the offense was not merely an incidental violation . . . but rather was an indication of the defendant’s willingness to commit more than one offense.

Defendant is appealing his kidnapping conviction and his consecutive prison sentence. Defendant argued the trial court erred in denying his motion for acquittal, because moving the victim from one room to another did not constitute kidnapping. He also argued the trial court erred by imposing a consecutive sentences because the sodomy was incidental to kidnapping. Under ORS 163.225, a person may commit kidnapping in either of two ways: by taking a victim “from one place to another,” or by “secretly confin[ing]” the victim in a place where the victim is unlikely to be found, and under ORS 137.123(5)(a), a consecutive sentence is proper if the offense was not merely an incidental violation . . . but rather was an indication of the defendant’s willingness to commit more than one offense. The Court reasoned that while distance moved is important, a key factor is whether the movement increases the victim’s isolation or restricts their freedom, which happened here. The Court further reasoned the sodomy conviction was not incidental to the kidnapping, but was a distinct act which showed a willingness to commit multiple offenses.The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed.