About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

35 S. Cal. L. Rev. 212 (1961-1962)
Kidnapping and the Element of Asportation

handle is hein.journals/scal35 and id is 222 raw text is: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW the testator from third persons. But the Glover court felt it would be arbitrary to exclude evidence by use of the privilege rule if all parties claim under the testator, and in effect hold that property belongs to one rather than another of the testator's heirs. This general proposition is adopted in California,5 and in many other states.26 Once the reason for the privilege ceases, the privilege ceases.2 The court's use of the attorney-client privilege in Taylor is an unnecessary extension of the rule, because by excluding evidence as to the testator's sanity it excludes important evidence that should not, from the standpoint of policy, be excluded if to do so would give effect to the will of an in- competent. Like the statute of frauds, the attorney-client privilege should be used as a shield, but never as a sword.-JEROME SARROW KIDNAPING AND THE ELEMENT OF ASPORTATION The defendants were members of a labor union engaged in picketing a non-union Mexican labor camp to induce the Mexican laborers to join a strike. The picketing progressed from verbal solicitation to violence. The defendants forced their way into the camp where fighting broke out. They pulled a knife on one of the laborers and under threat of assault forced him to leave the barracks. A second was pushed towards the front gate of the camp and a third was pulled from a washroom, dragged some fifteen feet, struck on the head, thrown to the ground, and kicked. An in- dictment was returned by the grand jury charging the defendants inter alia with the crime of kidnaping1 and conspiracy to commit kidnaping. Upon petition by the defendants, the California Supreme Court, in the case of Cotton v. Superior Court,' issued a writ of prohibition restrain- ing the Superior Court from taking any further proceedings other than dismissals as to the counts of kidnaping and conspiracy to commit kidnap- ing. At issue was the element of asportation. The court viewed the move- ments involved, in relation to the entirety of the acts of the defendants, and concluded there was insufficient asportation to constitute a violation of Section 207 of the Penal Code. This decision is in direct opposition to a considerable number of cases which have previously considered the issue and determined that literally any movement, however slight, was 25Paley v. Superior Court, 137 Cal. App. 2d 450, 290 P.2d 617 (1955). 2GAnnot., 64 A.L.R. 184 (1929). 27Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, 439 (1956). (Opinion by Justice Frank- furter.) 'The indictment was under CAL. PEN. CODE § 207 which provides that every person who forcibly steals, takes, or arrests any person in this state, and carries him into another country, state or county, or into another part of the same county... is guilty of kidnaping. 2364 P.2d 241, 15 Cal. Rptr. 65 (Cal. 1961) (unanimous). [Vol. 35

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most