People v. Thomas (1994)

In People v. Thomas (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1328, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the dismissal of a juror who "failed to perform his duty to deliberate before reaching his decision. The juror did not answer the questions posed to him by other jurors, did not sit at the table with the other jurors during deliberations, acted as if he had already made up his mind before hearing the whole case, and did not look at the two victims in the courtroom." (Id. at p. 1333.) The victim, Jennifer M., was kidnapped at gunpoint as she approached her car in a mall parking structure. The defendant forced her into her car and, as he drove away, asked her how much money she had. After Jennifer M. gave the defendant her wallet with $ 35, the defendant demanded her automated teller machine (ATM) card. Because she did not have it with her, the defendant drove Jennifer M. toward her apartment so that she could obtain the card. Before arriving, however, the defendant parked the car and repeatedly raped Jennifer M. When they finally arrived at the apartment, Jennifer M. called the police while the defendant waited in the car. (Thomas, supra, 26 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1331-1332.) The defendant was convicted of, among other crimes, two counts of kidnapping with intent to commit robbery on the theory that the first kidnapping "began when the defendant abducted Jennifer M. at the mall, indicated he wanted money and took her wallet, money and credit cards. . . . This kidnapping ended when he stopped the car, repeatedly raped the victim and forced her to engage in oral sex. The defendant committed a second kidnapping . . . when he drove Jennifer M. from the location of the sexual offenses to the Redondo Beach apartment, intending to rob her of her ATM card." (Thomas, supra, 26 Cal.App.4th at p. 1334.) The Court held that there was "a single abduction, followed by a continuous period of detention." (Thomas, supra, 26 Cal.App.4th at p. 1335.) "That the defendant may have changed his approach or focus as to the robbery, uttered a variety of threats to the victim, and engaged in other crimes after the initial abduction did not transform the offense into two kidnappings." (Ibid.)