Legal Opinion

People v. Hill

California Supreme Court

Decided July 27, 2000No. S077706PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CHIN, J.

Conviction of kidnapping and carjacking generally requires proof that the perpetrator committed the criminal acts against the will of the victim, i.e., without the victim’s consent. This requirement presents special problems when the victim is an infant too young to give or withhold consent. In People v. Oliver (1961) 55 Cal.2d 761, 768 [12 Cal.Rptr. 865, 361 P.2d 593] (Oliver), we found the against-the-will requirement satisfied as to a person unable to give legal consent if the criminal act “is done for an illegal purpose or with an illegal intent.” We believe an analogous…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. People v. MarshallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  2. People v. AlcalaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
  3. People v. StephensonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  4. People v. OliverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  5. Parnell v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. People v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
  2. People v. LopezCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
  3. People v. WesterfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
  4. In Re Michele D.California Supreme Court · 2002
  5. United States v. Velasquez-BosqueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API