At least four foreign decisions have considered the effect that a defendant's actions had upon the level of danger to which a CSC victim was exposed. See also People v Hunter, 19 Cal.App.3d 336; 97 Cal.Rptr. 29 (1971) (the asportation of the victim approximately three miles in an automobile subjected the victim to a greater risk of harm than that normally incident in rape or robbery); People v Powell, 716 P.2d 1096 (Colo, 1986) (asportation in a vehicle, before rape, substantially increased the risk of harm to the victim); State v Tucker, 317 N.C. 532; 346 S.E.2d 417 (1986) (conviction for kidnapping is proper where the defendant's asportation of the victim away from vehicle and for some distance before sexual assault had the effect of ensuring that the passersby would not witness or hinder in the commission of rape and thus increased the danger to the victim beyond that normal in a sexual assault); State v Whittington, 318 N.C. 114; 347 S.E.2d 403 (1986) (same conclusion). These cases are cited for illustration only.
(Cleveland, at p. 272.) In People v. Hunter (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 336, 338, the appellate court found proper separate punishment for kidnapping, in addition to oral copulation and rape, where the defendants had forced the victim into their car and transported her a distance of several miles, " 'not only to accomplish their plans to rob and rape her, but also to subject her to a "gang-style" series of assaults in which a number of other men participated . . . ." The defendants had thus engaged in "a series of divisible transactions and had multiple objectives—objectives entirely separate and apart from, and additional to, the objectives of the other two crimes of which they were convicted."
( Id., at p. 552.) Since it appears that in committing the kidnaping appellant had criminal objectives (of which he was not convicted) apart and/or in addition to the rape and oral copulation (for example, to assault Dillard by the use of various instruments, to rob her, to murder her and/or encourage her suicide by use of a poison) or that the sexual offenses were an afterthought, punishment for kidnaping as well as rape and oral copulation does not violate the prohibition against multiple punishment contained in Penal Code section 654. ( In re Cruz (1966) 64 Cal.2d 178, 180-181 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 289, 410 P.2d 825]; People v. Hunter (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 336, 338 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 29].) The cases cited by appellant do not compel a contrary conclusion.
See People v. Caudillo, 21 Cal. 3d 562, 580 P.2d 274 (1978); People v. Stanworth, 11 Cal.3d 588, 522 P.2d 1058 (1974); However, the same movement that is incidental to the sexual assault may be sufficient to supply the necessary asportation for second-degree kidnapping. See People v. Stender, 47 Cal. App.3d 413, 121 Cal. Rptr. 334 (1975); People v. Hunter, 19 Cal. App.3d 336, 97 Cal. Rptr. 29 (1971); People v. Mays, 17 Cal. App.3d 641, 95 Cal. Rptr. 190 (1971). II.
While the words "money" and "property" precede the words "thing of value", the rule of ejusdem generis has been rejected in applying statutes of this kind. State v. Strauser, 75 S.D. 266, 63 N.W.2d 345; and see State v. Berry, 200 Wn. 495, 93 P.2d 782; State v. Sanders, 136 La. 1059, 68 So. 125. Decisions under differing statutes, but generally in accord with our belief that a "thing of value" includes carnal satisfaction, are Gooch v. United States, 297 U.S. 124, 56 S.Ct. 395, 80 L.Ed. 522; De Herrera v. United States, 339 F.2d 587 (10 Cir.); Davidson v. United States, 312 F.2d 163 (8 Cir.); Dusky v. United States, 295 F.2d 743 (8 Cir.); Poindexter v. United States, 139 F.2d 158 (8 Cir.); State v. Burchett, 107 Ariz. 185, 484 P.2d 181; People v. Kristy, 4 Cal.2d 504, 50 P.2d 798; People v. Hunter, 19 Cal.App.3d 336, 97 Cal.Rptr. 29; People v. Mays, 17 Cal.App.3d 641, 95 Cal.Rptr. 190; Keith v. State, 120 Fla. 847, 163 So. 136; People v. Canale, 52 Ill.2d 107, 285 N.E.2d 133; People v. Pardue, 6 Ill. App.3d 430, 286 N.E.2d 29; Wagner v. Commonwealth, 355 S.W.2d 151 (Ky.); Crum v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R.631, 101 S.W.2d 270; Futerll v. State, 501 P.2d 901 (Okla. Cr.); State v. Andre, 195 Wn. 221, 80 P.2d 553. Other decisions are collected in Annot.