State v. Sierra, 254 P.3d 149

Sierra was charged with seven counts of unlawful use of a weapon, one fourth-degree assault, one first-degree kidnapping (Derrick), and two second-degree kidnappings (Jeter and Mintun).
The indictment alleged asportation for the second-degree kidnapping counts and a separate terrorizing purpose for first-degree kidnapping of Derrick.
At trial, the state argued Sierra moved Jeter and Mintun from a location near the store front to a back area behind the diesel desk, kneeling them there.
The jury convicted Sierra of all three kidnapping counts, and he was also convicted on related weapon and menacing counts.
The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Oregon Supreme Court granted review and reversed the two second-degree kidnapping convictions while affirming the first-degree kidnapping conviction.
The Supreme Court held that the two second-degree kidnapping convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence of asportation and remanded for judgment of acquittal on those counts, while sustaining the first-degree kidnapping conviction for Derrick on the terrorize element.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do Jeter and Mintun qualify for second-degree kidnapping asportation?	Sierra moved them to a location behind the diesel desk, a different area of the same room.	Movement within a single structure did not constitute moving from one place to another.	Insufficient evidence; not from one place to another.
Was the first-degree kidnapping conviction supported by a terrorizing purpose?	Sierra intended to terrorize Derrick by coercing an apology with a crossbow and threats.	Evidence did not prove a terrorizing purpose beyond fear or intimidation.	Sufficient evidence of terrorizing purpose; first-degree upheld.
Must asportation be non-incidental to another crime?	Movement can be non-incidental if it furthers the kidnapping objective.	Movement tied to other crimes can be incidental and still support kidnapping.	In this case, movement was incidental; supports reversal of second-degree charges.

State v. Murray, 340 Or. 599 (2006) (distinguishes incidental vs. non-incidental asportation)
State v. Walch, 346 Or. 463 (2009) (clarifies place and non-incidental asportation; movement to a qualitatively different place)
State v. Mejia, 348 Or. 1 (2010) (limits kidnapping where movement is incidental to other crimes)
State v. Cervantes, 319 Or. 121 (1994) (procedure for reviewing sufficiency of evidence; standard for review)