What is the evidence supporting the jury's implicit finding that moving from the scene of the crime to the victim's location increased the risk of harm to Doe 2?

Substantial evidence also supports the jury's implicit finding the movement resulted in an increase in the risk of harm to Doe 2. "Any determination of the increase in the risk of harm involves a comparison of the victim's physical location before and after the asportation." (People v. Salazar, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 348.) "The second prong . . . includes consideration of such factors as the decreased likelihood of detection, the danger inherent in a victim's foreseeable attempts to escape, and the attacker's enhanced opportunity to commit additional crimes. [Citations.] The fact that these dangers do not in fact materialize does not, of course, mean that the risk of harm was not increased." (People v. Rayford, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 13-14.) The increased risk of

Page 21