Appellant Lopez forced the driver of a vehicle out of the car at gunpoint, and then entered the car and threw his backpack on the seat. Before he could drive away, the victim confronted him, which caused appellant to leave the vehicle and flee. He was convicted of carjacking, and in this appeal challenged the evidence supporting the finding that a carjacking had been completed when the car had not been moved. The appellate court here affirmed. Appellant had successfully “taken” the car for purposes of the carjacking statute, despite the fact that he had not yet driven it. Carjacking is more a crime against a person than property; here, the victim was exposed to a high level of risk and force to separate him from his vehicle. The Legislature did not intend to preclude a conviction for carjacking merely because the vehicle was not placed in motion.