Kidnapping in the first degree
Source:
Section 163.235 — Kidnapping in the first degree, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors163.html.
Notes of Decisions
Proving intent to terrorize victim requires showing use of force or threat beyond what is required to prove that action was without consent. State v. Swaggerty, 15 Or App 343, 515 P2d 952 (1973)
Evidence that defendant ultimately murdered victim, and that defendant may have been guilty of nonconsensual sexual conduct, was insufficient to show that defendant had terrorized victim. State v. Nulph, 31 Or App 1115, 572 P2d 642 (1977), Sup Ct review denied
Evidence that defendant kidnapped victim with purpose of forcibly raping her was sufficient to support a conviction for kidnapping in first degree. State v. Strickland, 36 Or App 119, 584 P2d 310 (1978)
Where four victims were tied and gagged and told that if they attempted to leave they would be shot and fifth victim was forced at knife point to drive eight miles away, there was sufficient evidence from which jury could have concluded that defendant intended to interfere substantially with personal liberty of all his victims. State v. Dinkel, 49 Or App 917, 621 P2d 626 (1980)
Where evidence demonstrated that defendant intended to interfere substantially with personal liberty of each of his victims and jury found that separate intent to kidnap existed beyond intent to commit robbery, conviction for each charge of kidnapping was proper. State v. Dinkel, 49 Or App 917, 621 P2d 626 (1980)
Legislative intent is that there may be separate conviction and sentence for kidnapping only when it is not incidental to another crime, and it may be found not to be incidental if defendant had intent to interfere substantially with victim’s personal liberty. State v. Garcia, 288 Or 413, 605 P2d 671 (1980); State v. Thomas, 139 Or App 308, 911 P2d 1237 (1996), Sup Ct review denied
Where defendant contained victim to room in defendant’s house and two other individuals knew of victim’s location but individuals were not inclined to help victim, victim was held in “place where the person is not likely to be found,” which means found by individual who could reasonably be expected to help victim and not found by just any individual at all. State v. Kawamoto, 273 Or App 241, 359 P3d 305 (2015)
Law Review Citations
51 OLR 467, 489-492 (1972); 15 WLR 23 (1978)
Up to date