The Court of Appeal found the evidence insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a kidnaping conviction under Penal Code section 209, where the defendant in the course of robbing a jewelry shop moved the employees 50 feet from the front room to an office in the back and tied their ankles and wrists with duct tape and taped their mouths. (2-1.) Citing People v. Daniels (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1139, the court found the fact that the movement of the victims was merely incidental to the robbery was significant and declined to analyze whether the movement was beyond that necessary to commit the robbery, the analysis used in People v. Salazar (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 341, and People v. Shadden (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 164. The mere movement of the employees from public view, without more, did not increase the danger to the victims. However, the court did find the taking of the keys from one of the victims and subsequent removal of the employee’s car from the jewelry store parking lot constituted carjacking, as a vehicle taken by force or fear does not need to be taken from the immediate presence of the victim. Ramirez, P.J., dissented from the part of the opinion reversing the kidnaping convictions on the ground that jurors could reasonably find increased danger to the employees in their being moved from a showroom having large two-way windows to an office having one-way glass.