People v. Dominguez
47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 575, 39 Cal. 4th 1141, 140 P.3d 866 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Forced movement constitutes sufficient asportation for aggravated kidnapping if it is more than merely incidental to the underlying felony and substantially increases the risk of harm to the victim, a determination based on a qualitative evaluation of the circumstances, such as moving the victim to a more secluded location, rather than a quantitative measurement of distance.
Facts:
- In the early morning of August 23, 1997, Irma Perez was seen with Fernando Dominguez, Lionel Salcedo, and Jose Martinez after leaving a bar.
- A taxi drove the group to the San Benito labor camp; after two men exited, Perez also got out of the cab and began walking along Southside Road.
- Fernando Dominguez got out of the taxi and followed Perez as she walked away from the labor camp.
- Three days later, Perez's body was discovered in a shallow grave within a walnut orchard, located about 250 feet from Southside Road.
- Investigators found drag marks and two sets of shoe prints leading from near the road into the orchard.
- Perez's jeans and underpants were found buried at the base of a steep 10-12 foot embankment, approximately 25 feet from the road.
- An autopsy concluded that Perez had been beaten, choked to death, and forcibly raped, causing severe internal bruising.
- DNA analysis of semen recovered from Perez's body identified one of the donors as defendant Fernando Dominguez.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant Fernando Dominguez was convicted by a jury in a California superior court (trial court) of murder, kidnapping for rape, and rape.
- Dominguez appealed his convictions to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the rape conviction but reversed the kidnapping and murder convictions, ruling the evidence of asportation was insufficient.
- The People (the prosecution) filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of California.
- The Supreme Court of California granted the People's petition for review.
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 approximately 25 feet from a roadside down a 10-12 foot embankment into an orchard constitute sufficient asportation for aggravated kidnapping by being more than merely incidental to the rape and substantially increasing the risk of harm to the victim?
Opinions:
Majority - Werdegar, J.
Yes. The forced movement of the victim was sufficient for aggravated kidnapping because it was not merely incidental to the rape and substantially increased the risk of harm. The legal test for asportation requires a multifaceted, qualitative evaluation of the movement's scope, nature, and environmental context, not a simple quantitative measurement of distance. By forcing the victim 25 feet away from the road and 10-12 feet down a steep embankment into an orchard, Dominguez moved her from a relatively open area to a significantly more secluded location. This action substantially decreased the likelihood of detection, escape, or rescue, thereby increasing the risk of harm beyond that inherent in the crime of rape itself. This distinguishes the case from prior rulings where movement within a single structure, like a home or bank, was deemed merely incidental to the underlying felony.
Concurring - Corrigan, J.
I concur with the majority's conclusion that the evidence supports the aggravated kidnapping conviction. The established standard for aggravated kidnapping, as affirmed in People v. Rayford, holds that no minimum distance is required for asportation. Therefore, it is unnecessary for the court to address or discuss the asportation standards applicable to simple kidnapping.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that the asportation element of aggravated kidnapping is a context-dependent, qualitative inquiry, not a rigid test of distance. It clarifies for lower courts that even a numerically short movement can be legally substantial if it changes the victim's environment in a way that materially increases their risk of harm, such as by moving them to a more isolated or secluded area. This precedent strengthens the prosecution's ability to charge aggravated kidnapping in cases where the defendant's movement of the victim, while brief, is a tactical step to facilitate the underlying crime and prevent detection or escape. The ruling effectively shifts the focus from 'how far' to 'how much more dangerous' the movement made the situation for the victim.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Dominguez