Under what circumstances will a defendant be found guilty of kidnapping?

The nature and scope of the movement were significant; driving a car on the freeway is not an insubstantial act. Further, it would have been very dangerous for the victim to have attempted to escape from the car at that point. (People v. Martinez, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 236.)

We also reject the argument that the facts could support false imprisonment instead of kidnapping. Defendant does not explain the basis of his theory, other than to state that a kidnapping cannot be committed "without restraining the victim's liberty," that is, false imprisonment. ( 236.) But here there was evidence of asportation, which is not an element of false imprisonment. (People v. Cooks (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 224, 333.) Thus, instructions on lesser included offenses were not required.

2. Evidence Admitted Under Evidence Code Section 1109 and CALJIC No. 2.50.02