In what circumstances have courts reversed convictions for kidnapping and/or aggravated kidnapping?

In People v. Hoard, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at pages 601-602, 607, the defendant entered a jewelry store and moved two female employees 50 feet at gunpoint to the back office, where he bound them with duct tape. After confining them to the back room, he robbed the store. In reversing the convictions for aggravated kidnapping, this court noted that "[c]onfining the women in the back office gave defendant free access to the jewelry and allowed him to conceal the robbery from entering customers who might have thwarted him." (Id. at p. 607.) Accordingly, "[d]efendant's movement of the two women served only to facilitate the crime with no other apparent purpose." (Ibid.) The asportation of the victims was "merely incidental" to the robbery and did not increase the risk of harm.

In People v. Washington, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at pages 295-296, two defendants robbed a bank. While armed with a gun, one defendant jumped over the front counter and directed two tellers to empty the cash drawers. The second defendant, also armed, entered the bank manager's office and demanded money. The manager asked a teller to assist her in the vault. The manager and teller moved 14 or 15 feet into the vault. In holding that the movement of both victims was incidental to the robbery and did not increase the risk of harm, the court observed "robbery of a business owner or employee includes the risk of movement of the victim to the location of the valuables owned by the

Page 16