People v. Hartland

5 Citing cases

  1. People v. Adams

    No. B316494 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2023)

    "'In criminal cases, even in the absence of a request, a trial court must instruct on general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence and necessary for the jury's understanding of the case.'" (People v. Townsel (2016) 63 Cal.4th 25, 58; see People v. Hartland (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 71, 77; People v. Campbell (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 463, 493.) "'The trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on the essential elements of the charged offense.'" (People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 332; accord, People v. Sta Ana (2021)

  2. People v. Lewis

    14 Cal.5th 876 (Cal. 2023)   Cited 7 times

    Although it should be obvious, we emphasize the requirement that a defendant act with illegal intent or for an illegal purpose to be liable for kidnapping an unresisting intoxicated victim does not necessarily mean that a defendant who kidnaps a resisting intoxicated victim must act with such a specific intent. (See People v. Hartland (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 71, 78–79, 268 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 [a defendant who kidnaps a resisting intoxicated victim need only act with general intent].) The latter situation is materially different, and we need not consider it here.

  3. People v. Hughey

    325 Cal. Rptr. 3d 768 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024)   Cited 1 times
    In Hughey, the appellate court held it was error for the trial court to impose an on-bail enhancement based on an offense charged in another county when it was undisputed that there was no evidence the defendants had been convicted of the out-of-county offense.

    [3] To prove kidnapping, the People must prove a person was unlawfully moved using physical force or fear, without their consent, and the movement was for a substantial distance. (§ 207; People v. Hartland (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 71, 77, 268 Cal. Rptr.3d 1.)

  4. People v. Cherry

    No. F079148 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 28, 2022)

    To prove the crime of simple kidnapping, the prosecution must prove:" '(1) a person was unlawfully moved by the use of physical force or fear; (2) the movement was without the person's consent; and (3) the movement of the person was for a substantial distance.'" (People v. Hartland (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 71, 77.)

  5. People v. Lewis

    72 Cal.App.5th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 5 times
    In Lewis, supra, 14 Cal.5th at page 895, 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 699, 530 P.3d 1107, our Supreme Court ruled the "relaxed" standard of force applicable to children applies to incapacitated adults.

    We find no authority for the proposition Oliver and Michele D. , two cases where some force was used against children, provide any basis to hold an intoxicated adult victim can be kidnapped without any force, based on deception alone. ( People v. Hartland (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 71, 78-79, 268 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 [rejecting defendant's claim dicta in Oliver supported extending rule to adult victims who lack capacity to consent.) The only case that arguably suggests the trial court's instruction was proper is Daniels, supra , 176 Cal.App.4th 304, 97 Cal.Rptr.3d 659, which involved an intoxicated and intermittently conscious adult who was completely incapacitated.