Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Re: Does the victim need to be in court?

It's really not possible to answer your question with certainty, because there are things you don't say about the case. However, a very favorable new case just came down from the US Supreme Court that will have a major impact on the outcome of your question, and hopefully your lawyer knows of it. It's Crawford v. Washington, No. 02-9410. It's available online. Good luck.

Re: Does the victim need to be in court?

It depends upon the facts. In some trials there would be no way for the prosecution to prove its case without the victim's testimony. But there is no rule that the case must be thrown out if the victim isn't available; if there were, no one could ever be convicted of crimes like murder.

In order to win, the prosecution must produce admissible evidence supporting every element of the crime. These witnesses do not have to include the victim; if other people saw everything that happened they can testify about it. There may also be other evidence (footprints, etc.) that can be used to make the prosecution's case.

One element of kidnapping is the victim's lack of consent. In many cases only the victim can competently testify about this, but not always. If eyewitnesses saw the victim screaming "Help, I'm being kidnapped" (which would be admissible under the "excited utterance" exception to the hearsay rule) or something to that effect, their testimony would be enough.