## Facts

- Charles Alan Green arranged for an acquaintance to lure his wife, Karen Green, into a car by deception.
- Karen entered the car voluntarily; she was driven to meet Green and later taken to a remote location.
- Karen was killed at the remote location.
- After the killing, Green took Karen’s property (including clothing, purse, and rings) and disposed of her body in a manner intended to hinder identification.
- A jury convicted Green of first degree murder and robbery and convicted him of simple kidnapping as a lesser included offense.
- The jury also found true special circumstances alleging the murder was committed during robbery and during kidnapping, and it returned a death verdict.

## Issues

1. Whether a murder qualifies for a robbery-murder special circumstance when the taking occurs after the killing and appears motivated by concealment rather than an independent felonious objective.
2. Whether movement induced solely by fraud, without force or fear, satisfies the elements of simple kidnapping under Penal Code § 207.
3. Whether evidence supports a robbery conviction when property is taken after the victim is killed.
4. Whether a prosecutor commits misconduct by stating in closing argument that the jury’s conclusion should match the conclusion the prosecutor reached months earlier.

## Decision

- Affirmed the convictions for first degree murder and robbery.
- Reversed the kidnapping conviction because asportation accomplished by fraud alone, without force or fear, does not establish kidnapping under Penal Code § 207.
- Set aside the robbery-murder special-circumstance finding because the record showed a taking ancillary to the homicide rather than a killing to advance an independent robbery purpose.
- Set aside the kidnapping-murder special-circumstance finding because it depended on the invalid kidnapping conviction.
- Reversed the judgment as to penalty and vacated the death sentence because no valid special circumstance remained.
- Rejected the claim of prosecutorial misconduct; in context, the challenged closing remark was treated as permissible argument based on the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- A felony-murder special circumstance requires that the killing be committed to carry out, facilitate, or advance an independent felonious purpose; a posthomicide taking that is merely incidental to the killing or aimed at concealment does not satisfy the “during the commission” requirement for robbery-murder.
- Robbery may be proved even if the property is taken after the victim is killed, so long as the force and the taking are part of a single continuous transaction in which the killing makes resistance impossible.
- Simple kidnapping under Penal Code § 207 requires movement accomplished by force or fear; deception alone is insufficient.
- Alleged prosecutorial misconduct in argument is evaluated in the context of the entire summation; a prosecutor may express an opinion of guilt if tied to the record and accompanied by the understanding that the jury decides the facts.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Green’s murder and robbery convictions but reversed the kidnapping conviction, invalidated the robbery- and kidnapping-based special circumstances, and vacated the death sentence because the special-circumstance statute requires a killing that furthers an independent felony and § 207 kidnapping cannot rest on fraud alone.


People v. Green, 27 Cal. 3d 1 (Cal. 1980)