In this first attempt to define the intent necessary to sustain a conviction for kidnapping during the commission of a carjacking, the court analogized to kidnapping during the commission of a robbery, and adopted the following test: if there is substantial evidence that appellant intended the kidnapping to effect an escape or prevent an alarm from being sounded, the intent requirement has been satisfied. It does not matter whether the kidnapping actually did effect an escape or prevent an alarm from being sounded. The question is whether appellant intended it for that purpose, and here the evidence was sufficient to reach that conclusion, in spite of the fact that the kidnapping did not actually prevent an alarm from being sounded or effect an escape. Moreover, the jury was properly instructed in CALJIC 9.54.1 that appellant must have had the “specific intent to facilitate the commission of the carjacking.” Appellate College trainee Randi Coven represented appellant.