What is the test for a claim of insufficient evidence in a kidnapping case?

robber or to remove the victim to another place where he might less easily sound an alarm." (People v. Monk (1961) 56 Cal.2d 288, 295, 14 Cal.Rptr. 633, 363 P.2d 865.) Therefore, if there is substantial evidence that appellant intended the kidnapping to effect an escape or prevent an alarm from being sounded, his conviction for kidnapping during the commission of a carjacking must stand.

The proper test to determine a claim of insufficient evidence in a criminal case is whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 562, 162 Cal.Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738.) "In determining whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellate court `must view the evidence in a light most favorable to respondent and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.' [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 576, 162 Cal.Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738.)