What is the standard of review for a kidnapping charge?

reasonable, credible and of solid valuesuch that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. [Citation.] [] The same standard of review applies to cases in which the prosecution relies primarily on circumstantial evidence and to special circumstance allegations. [Citation.] [I]f the circumstances reasonably justify the jury's findings, the judgment may not be reversed simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding. [Citation.] We do not reweigh evidence or reevaluate a witness's credibility. [Citations.]" (People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 210 [internal quotation marks omitted].)

Kidnapping to commit robbery carries a penalty of life in prison "if the movement of the victim is beyond that merely incidental to the commission of, and increases the risk of harm to the victim over and above that necessarily present in, the intended underlying offense." ( 209, subd. (b)(2).) The two requirements are interrelated. Whether the victim's forced movement was merely incidental to the robbery "is necessarily connected to whether it substantially increased the risk to the victim." (People v. Dominguez (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1141, 1152.)

When the robbery involves a business owner or employee, the robbery "includes the risk of movement of the victim to the location of the valuables owned by the business that are held on the business premises. Many retail businesses hold large amounts of cash or other valuable personal property on the business premises, frequently in a secure area away from public view, often in a safe or vault." (People v. Washington (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 290, 300 (Washington).) In Washington, the robbers entered a bank, robbed the tellers, and moved one of the tellers 45 feet to the vault and the manager 35 feet to the vault, then used the teller's and manager's keys to open the vault. "There was no excess or gratuitous movement of the victims over and above that necessary to obtain the money in the vault." (Washington, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 299.) The court found this movement insufficient to support a conviction for aggravated kidnapping. (Ibid.) The court explained that "[t]he fact thresholds within the business are crossed cannot elevate

Page 6