By Ray Hill, Professor Emeritus 
Santa Rosa Junior College

Ruling: Dragging a victim 10 feet from the sidewalk to the middle of the street did not constitute “substantial movement” for simple kidnapping (207(a) P.C.) 

People v. Ellis – Feb. 3, 2025, in B331474 (2 DCA, Div. 8) [2025 WL 368765; 2025 Cal.App.Lexis 55]. 

Facts: The 16-year-old victim and her friend were walking to a bus stop in Los Angeles when the defendant approached them, wearing only socks and a shirt. The defendant suddenly grabbed the victim by the throat and shirt and dragged her approximately 10 feet from the sidewalk to the middle of the street, saying “You are coming with me so a car can hit us.” There was no traffic on the roadway. Bystanders seated at a nearby pizzeria saw what was happening and verbally intervened. The defendant released the victim and walked away. Shortly thereafter, he threatened and assaulted two separate victims, for which he faced additional charges. 

The defendant was convicted of simple kidnapping. On appeal, he claimed there was insufficient evidence to support the asportation (movement) element required by statute.  

Held: Simple kidnapping (207(a) P.C.) requires two elements: The use of force, fear or menace toward a victim and movement of a “substantial distance,” or asportation. Considering the “totality of the circumstances,” 2DCA ruled that moving the victim approximately 10 feet from the sidewalk to the middle of the street did not amount to a “substantial distance.” The entire incident was visible to the public, the movement did not decrease the likelihood of detection or rescue, and the movement did not increase the defendant’s opportunity to commit additional crimes (rape, robbery) or substantially increase the victim’s “risk of harm.”  

The kidnapping conviction was reversed and the case remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court for resentencing consideration on a false imprisonment by force or violence (236 P.C.) charge. 

Notes: We have briefed several kidnapping cases over the past year or so dealing with the asportation element and “risk of harm.”  

Examples:  

• Movement of eight to 10 feet to a more secluded bathroom stall to commit rape, upheld (CAC00109) 

• Movement from inside a bar to a parked vehicle with the intent to commit rape, upheld (CAC00112) 

• Movement of 40 feet inside a store to a vault room to commit robbery, upheld (CAC00171).  

In these cases, courts ruled there was both sufficient movement and increased “risk of harm” to the victims. In this present case, the court concluded there was not enough movement or “risk of harm” to uphold the trial court’s original verdict.