Section 1215 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

to go with the defendant. The other person consented if (he/she) (1)
freely and voluntarily agreed to go with or be moved by the defendant,
(2) was aware of the movement, and (3) had sufficient maturity and
understanding to choose to go with the defendant. The People have the
burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the other person did
not consent to go with the defendant. If the People have not met this
burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of this crime.
[Consent may be withdrawn. If, at first, a person agreed to go with the
defendant, that consent ended if the person changed his or her mind and
no longer freely and voluntarily agreed to go with or be moved by the
defendant. The defendant is guilty of kidnapping if after the other
person withdrew consent, the defendant committed the crime as I have
defined it.]]
New January 2006; Revised October 2010, April 2020, October 2021, March 2022
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to give an instruction defining the elements of the
crime.
In the paragraph defining “substantial distance,” give the bracketed sentence listing
factors that the jury may consider, when evidence permits, in evaluating the totality
of the circumstances. (People v. Martinez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 225, 237 [83
Cal.Rptr.2d 533, 973 P.2d 512].) However, in the case of simple kidnapping, if the
movement was for a substantial distance, the jury does not need to consider any
other factors. (People v. Martinez, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 237; see People v.
Stanworth (1974) 11 Cal.3d 588, 600–601 [114 Cal.Rptr. 250, 522 P.2d 1058].)
The court must give the bracketed language on movement incidental to an
associated crime when it is supported by the evidence. (People v. Martinez, supra,
20 Cal.4th at p. 237; People v. Bell (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 428, 439 [102
Cal.Rptr.3d 300].)
Give the bracketed definition of “consent” on request.
Defenses—Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on the defense of consent if there is
sufficient evidence to support the defense. (See People v. Davis (1995) 10 Cal.4th
463, 516–518 [41 Cal.Rptr.2d 826, 896 P.2d 119] [approving consent instruction as
given]; see also People v. Sedeno (1974) 10 Cal.3d 703, 717, fn. 7 [112 Cal.Rptr. 1,
518 P.2d 913] overruled on other grounds in People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th
142, 165 [77 Cal.Rptr.2d 870, 960 P.2d 1094] [when court must instruct on
defenses].) An optional paragraph is provided for this purpose, “Defense: Consent
Given.”
On request, if supported by the evidence, also give the bracketed paragraph that
CALCRIM No. 1215
KIDNAPPING
984

People v. Isitt (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 23, 28 [127 Cal.Rptr. 279]; People v.
Patrick (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 952, 968 [179 Cal.Rptr. 276].
•
Incidental Movement Test. People v. Martinez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 225, 237–238
[83 Cal.Rptr.2d 533, 973 P.2d 512].
•
Intent Requirement. People v. Thornton (1974) 11 Cal.3d 738, 765 [114 Cal.Rptr.
467, 523 P.2d 267], disapproved on other grou