In a kidnapping case under the Model Penal Code, the movement of the victim in a neighboring state can support a conviction if the movement was more than merely incidental to the underlying offense. Which statement best captures this rule?

• A. Asportation can be proven by movement within a state if it is more than incidental to the underlying offense.
• B. Asportation requires movement across state lines in all cases.
• C. Asportation cannot be proven by movement within a state, even if it is more than incidental.
• D. Asportation only applies to crimes committed in the same jurisdiction where the event began.

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that kidnapping under the Model Penal Code hinges on asportation—the movement of the victim—that is more than merely incidental to the underlying offense. Crucially, this movement does not have to cross state lines. A victim moved within the same state can still satisfy asportation if the movement is substantial and not merely incidental to the confinement or the crime being committed. This prevents a defendant from avoiding kidnapping liability by keeping the victim’s movement confined to one jurisdiction or a minimal shift.

So, movement within a neighboring state can support a kidnapping conviction provided the movement is more than incidental to the underlying offense. The rule does not require interstate movement in every case, and it does not hold that movement within the same state can never count.