cdTOCtest

certif. denied, 63 N.J. 250 (1973). See also State v.
Hodgson, 44 N.J. 151, 164 (1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S.
1021 (1966).

F. Physician-Patient Privilege

State in the Interest of M.P.C., 152 N.J. Super. 519,
531 (J. & D.R. Ct. 1977), aff’d o.g. 165 N.J. Super. 131
(App. Div. 1979). The use of the word “crime” in the
exception to physician-patient privilege (N.J.S.A.
2A:84A-22.6) includes an act of delinquency which is
based on the commission of an adult offense of criminal
magnitude.

KIDNAPPING, CRIMINALKIDNAPPING, CRIMINALKIDNAPPING, CRIMINALKIDNAPPING, CRIMINALKIDNAPPING, CRIMINAL

RESTRAINT AND RELATEDRESTRAINT AND RELATEDRESTRAINT AND RELATEDRESTRAINT AND RELATEDRESTRAINT AND RELATED

OFFENSESOFFENSESOFFENSESOFFENSESOFFENSES

I. KIDNAPPING

A. Generally - definition

An individual is guilty of kidnapping if he or she

unlawfully removes or confines another with a purpose of

holding that person for ransom or as a shield or hostage,

or, with one of the unlawful purposes enumerated in

N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1b(1) to (4), if he or she unlawfully

removes another from that person’s place of residence or

business, or unlawfully confines another for a substantial

period of time, or unlawfully removes another a

substantial distance from the vicinity where the person

was found. N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1 et seq. If the prosecution

involves the purpose to permanently deprive a parent,

guardian or other lawful custodian of the victim, N.J.S.A.

2C:13-1b(4), there are statutory affirmative defenses

available based generally upon belief that there was

consent for the taking by either the custodial parent or

the child who was at least fourteen years old or upon the

perceived need to protect the child or the custodial parent

from imminent danger. N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1e,f,g.

B. Substantial Distance/Confinement for a Substantial

Period of Time

State v. Masino, 94 N.J. 436 (1983), held that one is

transported a “substantial distance” if that asportation is

criminally significant in the sense of being more than

merely incidental to the underlying crime. Factors to be

considered are not only the distance traveled but the

“enhanced” non-trivial “risk of harm resulting from the

asportation and isolation of the victim.” The Supreme

Court reinstated Masino’s conviction for kidnapping.

Defendant pulled the victim from her car in the early

hours of a Sunday morning, beat her and then dragged

her across the road and down an embankment of a pond

shrouded from view by trees. He continued his physical

assault, removed some of her clothing, sexually assaulted

her, plunged her head repeatedly into the pond, removed

her remaining clothes which he took with him and left

her naked and helpless.

State v. Matarama, 306 N.J. Super. 6 (App. Div.

1997), certif. denied, 153 N.J. 50 (1998). Judgment of

acquittal was properly denied where victim was dragged

twenty-three feet to a small alley at the end of her