How has the jury been instructed to consider the age of the victim?

As these instructions reveal, the jury was not foreclosed from considering the victim's age. Even though the prosecutor argued risk of harm to the jury, the latter was never asked to decide whether the movement of the victim substantially increased her vulnerability and/or risk of harm over that which existed prior to her movement. The instruction instead focused on whether the distance the victim was moved was substantial. Since we have no way of [56 Cal.App.4th 1293] knowing what facts formed the basis of the jury's guilty verdict, appellant's conviction for section 208, subdivision (b) must be reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial in which the jury can be instructed in a manner consistent with this opinion. (In re Winship (1970) 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1072, 25 L.Ed.2d 368; People v. Kobrin (1995) 11 Cal.4th 416, 423, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 895, 903 P.2d 1027.)