<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>KIDNAPPING:</u></b> EVIDENCE FAILED TO PROVE THAT DEFENDANT’S EXTENDED ASSAULT OF<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">VICTIMWITHIN HER APARTMENT INVOLVED ASPORTATION FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>State v. Opitz,</i> 256 Or App __, __ P3d __ (May 15, 2013) (Marion) (AAG Jeremy Rice).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Defendant assaulted his girlfriend repeatedly over several hours inside her one-bedroom<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">apartment, leaving her seriously injured. During the course of the extended assault, he moved<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">her around between different rooms. For example, after beating the victim in the living room, he<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“pulled her by her hair into the bathroom and threw her headfirst into the shower.” There, the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">victim’s “face smashed into a metal bar in the shower, fracturing the orbital bone around her left<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">eye.” He then “turned cold water onto the victim to rinse off the blood.” Even though she<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">wanted to obtain medical treatment for her “substantial injuries,” he forced her to remain in the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">apartment with him for the next three days. Eventually, her daughter called the police for a<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“welfare check,” and the victim was rescued. Defendant was charged with numerous offenses,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">including a count of first-degree kidnapping based on an allegation that he took the victim “from<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">one place to another.” ORS 163.225(1)(a). The case was tried to the court, and defendant<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">moved for a judgment of acquittal on that kidnapping charge, arguing that the evidence was<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">insufficient to establish that he moved the victim “from one place to another.” The trial court<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(Judge John B. Wilson) denied the motion, and found defendant guilty.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>Held</u></b>: Conviction for first-degree kidnapping reversed, otherwise affirmed; remanded for<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">resentencing (Haselton, C.J.). The trial court should have granted defendant’s motion for<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">judgment of acquittal. [1] Defendant sufficiently preserved his argument concerning the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">asportation element of the kidnapping charge. Although his argument before the trial court<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“pertained primarily to the intent element of kidnapping,” the state’s response and the trial<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">court’s reasoning rejecting his argument “demonstrate that the parties and the court both<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">understood that defendant’s motion challenged the sufficiency of the evidence as to both the act<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">and intent elements.” [2] With respect to different room in the same residence, “generic<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">functional distinctions do not establish the requisite ‘qualitative difference’ vis-à-vis the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">commission of the crime of kidnapping. The hallmark of ‘qualitative difference’ is whether the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">difference between the starting and ending places promotes or effectuates a substantial<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">interference ‘with another’s personal liberty.’ ORS 163.225(1). In the situation and context of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">this case, the functional differences among the rooms in the victim’s apartment had no effect on<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the extent to which defendant interfered with the victim’s personal liberty. In that respect, we<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">also note that the state adduced no evidence that, in moving the victim between rooms of her<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">apartment, defendant intended or accomplished transporting the victim to a place where he could<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">exert greater control over the victim or increase her isolation.” [3] The evidence was insufficient<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">to prove asportation. To establish that element of a kidnapping offense, the state must prove that<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">defendant “qualitatively changed the victim’s location,” and that any movement was not<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“incidental to the assaults.” Under State v. Sierra, 349 Or 506, 518 n 9 (2010), defendant’s<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">movement of the victim from room to room around her apartment was incidental to the assault<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">and no individual movement—including the movement from the living room to the bathroom<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">where he cleaned her blood—constituted a “qualitative” change in her location.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A146084.pdf">http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A146084.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<DIV>
*****CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*****<BR>
<BR>
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete the message and any attachments from your system. <BR>
<BR>
************************************<BR>
</DIV></body>
</html>