The state Supreme Court has agreed to hear appeals about the definition of “kidnapping” and also the calculation of a luxury mountain resort’s property tax bill.

In case announcements released on Monday, the justices indicated they would review whether a trial court judge correctly described kidnapping as an offense that occurs when someone is seized and carried, which includes “any movement, however short in distance.”

The case originated in Gilpin County, where a jury found Nicholas Leonel Garcia, Jr. guilty of kidnapping and other offenses. Garcia and his associates abducted their victim from a Black Hawk casino, robbed him and drove him to Denver.

After the jury asked for clarification on what constituted kidnapping, the judge, over the defense’s objections, gave the additional definition referencing any movement. By a 2-1 vote, a Court of Appeals panel found the judge’s additional commentary correctly stated the law.

Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown disagreed, believing the trial court judge improperly replaced the element of “seized and carried,” which is explicitly written in the law, with his subsequent comment to the jury about movement. Brown also believed the additional instruction should have referenced a substantial increase in risk to the victim.

The court “effectively reduced the prosecution’s burden of proof and may have allowed the jury to convict Garcia on legally insufficient grounds,” she wrote.

The Supreme Court will decide whether the appellate panel’s majority was correct to uphold the supplemental instruction.

Also accepted for review was an appeal from Vail Resorts, challenging a separate appellate panel’s order to include rental income and amenity fees in its property tax assessment.

The company owns the Lodge at Vail Resort and Hotel, which includes 80 hotel rooms and 74 separately-owned condominiums. Both types of lodging are connected and have access to the same amenities, with Vail subsidiaries managing the condo properties.

The Eagle County assessor valued the Lodge’s taxable real property in excess of $40 million, but Vail Resorts claimed the number should be half that. The three-member Court of Appeals panel upheld the higher valuation, agreeing the share of condo rental income that went to Vail Resorts, plus amenity fees, should be part of the assessment.

The justices will now weigh the legality of that calculation.