People v. Aguilar
16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 231, 120 Cal. App. 4th 1044, 2004 Daily Journal DAR 8953 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Forcible movement of a victim, even over a relatively short distance, constitutes asportation for aggravated kidnapping if it changes the victim's environment in a way that is not merely incidental to the commission of the underlying crime and substantially increases the risk of harm to the victim.
Facts:
- Sergio Barrera Aguilar followed Nancy C., a 16-year-old, as she walked her dog on a residential street at night.
- Aguilar grabbed Nancy C., stated his intent to rape her, and digitally penetrated her.
- He then forcibly pulled her 133 feet down the sidewalk, moving from an area illuminated by a porch light to an 'extremely dark' area in front of an unlit house.
- In the darker location, Aguilar pushed Nancy C. onto the hood of a car and digitally penetrated her again.
- Aguilar later admitted to police that his purpose in moving her was to go 'to a place where nobody could see [them]'.
- A neighbor, Anthony Ventura Castillo, heard screams and saw Aguilar holding a knife near Nancy C.'s neck before intervening.
Procedural Posture:
- Sergio Barrera Aguilar was charged with kidnapping to commit rape and other offenses in a California superior court, which is the trial court of first instance.
- A jury convicted Aguilar on all counts, including the aggravated kidnapping charge.
- The jury also made special findings that Aguilar used a knife, inflicted great bodily injury, and that the movement substantially increased the risk of harm to the victim.
- Aguilar (appellant) appealed the conviction to the California Court of Appeal, Second District (an intermediate appellate court), arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the aggravated kidnapping conviction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does forcibly moving a victim 133 feet at night from a lit sidewalk to an 'extremely dark' area constitute movement that is not merely incidental to the commission of a rape and that substantially increases the risk of harm to the victim, thereby supporting a conviction for aggravated kidnapping?
Opinions:
Majority - Gilbert, P. J.
Yes. The forcible movement of the victim supports a conviction for aggravated kidnapping because it was not merely incidental to the rape and it substantially increased the risk of harm to her. The court applied a two-prong test, first analyzing whether the movement was 'merely incidental' to the underlying crime. It concluded that because the movement changed the victim's environment from a lit area to a dark, secluded one, it was not merely incidental, regardless of the short distance. Aguilar's own admission that he moved her to avoid detection supports this conclusion. Second, the court determined that the movement substantially increased the risk of harm. By moving the victim to a dark and isolated location, Aguilar decreased the likelihood of detection, made escape more difficult, and enhanced his opportunity to commit additional crimes. The court explicitly rejected the reasoning of People v. Hoard, finding it inconsistent with the controlling precedent of People v. Rayford, which emphasizes that a change in environment that limits detection is a critical factor in the risk-of-harm analysis.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal standard for asportation in aggravated kidnapping cases in California, solidifying the 'change in environment' test. The court clarifies that even a short-distance movement can be legally substantial if it makes the victim more vulnerable by moving them to a more isolated or less visible location. By explicitly disagreeing with the analysis in People v. Hoard, the court provides a clear signal to lower courts to follow the precedent set in People v. Rayford, which focuses on whether the movement increases the risk of harm by limiting the possibility of detection and escape. This case affirms that the purpose and effect of the movement, rather than just the distance, are paramount in determining whether the separate crime of kidnapping has occurred.
