Section 1830 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

“Extortion” is defined in Penal Code section 518. If the kidnapping was for
purposes of extortion, give one of the bracketed definitions of extortion on request.
Give the second definition if the defendant is charged with intending to extort an
official act. (People v. Hill (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 661, 668 [190 Cal.Rptr. 628]; see
People v. Ordonez (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1207, 1229–1230 [277 Cal.Rptr. 382];
People v. Norris (1985) 40 Cal.3d 51, 55–56 [219 Cal.Rptr. 7, 706 P.2d 1141]
[defining “official act”].) Extortion may also be committed by using “the color of
official right” to make an official do an act. (Pen. Code, § 518; see Evans v. United
States (1992) 504 U.S. 255, 258 [112 S.Ct. 1881, 119 L.Ed.2d 57]; McCormick v.
United States (1990) 500 U.S. 257, 273 [111 S.Ct. 1807, 114 L.Ed.2d 307] [both
discussing common law definition].) It appears that this type of extortion rarely
occurs in the context of kidnapping, so it is excluded from this instruction.
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].) Give the bracketed paragraph on the defense of consent. On request, if
supported by the evidence, also give the bracketed paragraph that begins with
“Consent may be withdrawn.” (See People v. Camden (1976) 16 Cal.3d 808, 814
[129 Cal.Rptr. 438, 548 P.2d 1110].)
The defendant’s reasonable and actual belief in the victim’s consent to go with the
defendant may be a defense. (See People v. Greenberger (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th
298, 375 [68 Cal.Rptr.2d 61]; People v. Isitt (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 23, 28 [127
Cal.Rptr. 279] [reasonable, good faith belief that victim consented to movement is a
defense to kidnapping].)
Related Instructions
For the elements of extortion, see CALCRIM No. 1830, Extortion by Threat or
Force.
AUTHORITY
•
Elements. Pen. Code, § 209(a).
•
Requirement of Lack of Consent. People v. Eid (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 859, 878
[114 Cal.Rptr.3d 520].
•
Extortion. Pen. Code, § 518; People v. Hill (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 661, 668
[190 Cal.Rptr. 628]; see People v. Ordonez (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1207,
1229–1230 [277 Cal.Rptr. 382].
•
Amount of Physical Force Required. People v. Chacon (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th
52, 59 [43 Cal.Rptr.2d 434]; People v. Schoenfeld (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 671,
685–686 [168 Cal.Rptr. 762].
•
Bodily Injury Defined. People v. Chacon (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 52, 59; People
KIDNAPPING
CALCRIM No. 1202
971

The (threat/use of force) must be the controlling reason that the other
person consented. If the person consented because of some other
controlling reason, the defendant