State v. Kinslow

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 06-26-2013
  • Case #: A146208
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Schuman, P.J. for the Court; Wollheim, J.; and Nakamoto, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORS 163.225(1)(a), movement of an individual from one room to another within the same house does not meet the asportation element.

Defendant appealed the trial court's denial of judgments of acquittal on her first degree kidnapping, and manufacturing, delivering, and possession of methamphetamine convictions. Defendant also appealed admittance of a lab report as evidence. Defendant beat and strangled victim repeatedly over the course of a day and a half in numerous rooms of Defendant's home. During the course of the beatings, Defendant took and retained victim's cell phone. In conjunction with the beatings, and taking of the cell phone, Defendant used and sold methamphetamine. Defendant argued that the movement of victim from one room of her house to another meets neither the asportation element of ORS 163.225(1)(a), nor the "qualitatively different place" requirement of State v. Sierra. Defendant also appealed her possession of victim's cell phone as stolen property in conjunction with her drug offenses as sufficient to elevate those offenses to "commercial." Finally, Defendant appealed the delivery of a certified laboratory report as proper evidence because the author did not testify. The Court held that the movement of victim from one room of the house to another did not meet the burden of ORS 163.225(1)(a). The Court rejected Defendant's remaining assignments of error having previously rejected arguments in similar matters. Conviction of first-degree kidnapping reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Advanced Search