Gunpoint Kidnapping in AT&T Store: Court Confirms Substantial Movement; Conflicts in Rulings Persist 

November 01, 2024
CAC00171
CASE LAW
  • Robbery and Kidnapping
  • Movement of Victim During Robbery
  • Kidnapping
  • Simple Kidnapping
RULES

Forcing Employees into a Secluded Vault Room Where at Gunpoint They Were Forced to Load Stolen Goods into a Bag Was Sufficient Distance to Satisfy the “Substantial Movement” Element of Simple Kidnapping (207 P.C.). 

FACTS

Defendant and a co-principal entered a Camarillo AT&T store near closing time, with the blinds drawn to avoid detection. At gunpoint, they forced three employees (the victims) into a small, secluded “vault room” with no exit, demanding that they load stolen goods into bags under the threat of death—one victim had a gun held against his neck. The victims were moved approximately 40 feet to facilitate the robbery.

The defendant was convicted of simple kidnapping and second-degree robbery and sentenced to 10 years.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the movement of the victims within the same premises was insufficient to satisfy the “substantial distance” element required for a kidnapping conviction.

HELD

The 2DCA (Division 6) ruled that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of “substantial movement” of the victims, which increased their “risk of harm.” The movement occurred under an express threat of death, causing multiple victims to change locations and remain out of public view, thereby heightening their risk and reducing the likelihood of the robbery being discovered. Additionally, the movement increased the risk of harm if the victims attempted to escape and facilitated the defendant’s own escape.

As a result, the simple kidnapping conviction was upheld.

Author Notes

Occasionally, there are two different DCAs in conflict with each other. Less common is the occurrence of two divisions within the same DCA (2DCA) having conflicting rulings.

We previously reported on Peo. v. Hall, LUPC Ref. #CAC00165, 2DCA (Division 3) on 10/14/24, where an opposite finding was reached regarding “risk of harm” movement. The Hughey court disagreed with the majority in the Hall decision, with a dissenting judge in the Hall case disagreeing with the majority). The Hughey court ruled that the Hall majority failed to consider the “totality of the movement” and the associated physical and psychological harm that extended beyond the movement necessary for the mere commission of a robbery. The bottom line is that the distance involved in a simple kidnapping should be assessed within the “totality” of circumstances, including “changed circumstances” and the psychological harm suffered by the victim.

When such conflicts arise, these cases are ripe for acceptance by the California Supreme Court to establish a unified rule for all courts in the state.

View Applicable Disclaimer Notice
Court Case Name
Peo. v. Hughey, 2DCA Division 6 - #B325796, September 19, 2024, 2024 WL 4248869, 2014 Cal. App. Lexis 591). 
Link