Utah Court of Appeals
Can threats alone constitute child kidnapping in Utah? State v. Flores Explained
Summary
Flores was convicted of multiple felonies including three counts of child kidnapping after holding a mother and her three children in her apartment for 36 hours. He appealed the child kidnapping convictions, arguing insufficient evidence that he kidnapped the children independently from their mother.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals in State v. Flores addressed whether threatening children with violence to keep them from leaving a location constitutes kidnapping under Utah’s child kidnapping statute.
Background and Facts
Gerber Flores held a mother and her three children (ages 4, 7, and 8) in her apartment for approximately 36 hours while he physically and sexually assaulted the mother. During this time, Flores threatened to kill “all of us” if any of the children went outside and specifically threatened to “slit [their] throats” if they called police or left. At one point, he chased all the children with a utility knife. Flores moved for directed verdict on the child kidnapping counts, arguing insufficient evidence that he kidnapped the children independently from their mother.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether threats of violence alone, without physical restraint, could establish the “seizes, confines, detains, or transports” element of Utah’s child kidnapping statute. The court also addressed preservation of error when a defendant makes contradictory statements during motion practice.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied the invited error doctrine to one claim where Flores first argued no evidence showed a child’s presence, then acknowledged such evidence existed. On the merits, the court interpreted Utah Code § 76-5-301.1’s language “by any means and in any manner” broadly, concluding that confinement through threats satisfies the statutory elements. The court cited authority that “appeals to fear, such as a threat to kill or do bodily harm” are sufficient for kidnapping without actual violence.
Practice Implications
This decision establishes that Utah’s child kidnapping statute encompasses psychological restraint through threats. Defense counsel should carefully craft directed verdict arguments to avoid contradictory statements that may constitute invited error. The ruling also demonstrates Utah courts’ willingness to interpret kidnapping statutes broadly to protect children from various forms of unlawful confinement.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Flores
Citation
2015 UT App 164
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20131103-CA
Date Decided
June 25, 2015
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Threatening children with physical harm to prevent them from leaving can constitute kidnapping under Utah’s child kidnapping statute, which permits confinement or detention ‘by any means and in any manner.’
Standard of Review
Correctness for rulings on motions for directed verdict
Practice Tip
When moving for directed verdict on sufficiency grounds, avoid making statements that acknowledge evidence exists, as this may constitute invited error and waive appellate review.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.