Can a violation of section 266a of the California Civil Code of Civil Procedure be satisfied by obtaining consent by fraudulent inducement or misrepresentation?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Savala, C075001 (Cal. App. 2016):
The People contend a violation of section 266a will not "necessarily or commonly" result in a violation of section 209(a). Section 209(a) requires that the victim not consent to the kidnapping. (People v. Eid (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 859, 878).) The People argue section 266a "can be satisfied by procuring the victim's consent by fraudulent inducement or misrepresentation."
Section 209(a) can be violated if the defendant "inveigles, entices, decoys." "The predicate acts 'inveigle' and 'decoy' connote deception, but not force or fear; they are, however, inconsistent with a victim's knowing consent." (People v. Eid, supra, 187 Cal.App.4th at p. 875.) Thus, the statutory language indicates the lack of consent necessary for violating section 209(a) is satisfied by deception. Taking a person by fraudulent inducement or misrepresentation will "necessarily or commonly" result in a violation of section 209(a).
Page 16
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
