What is the test for determining whether there was a foreseeable crime that was a natural and probable consequence of kidnapping?

Appellant correctly argues that the target offense here was kidnapping, while the foreseeable crime that was a natural and probable consequence was murder. As appellant notes, while murder can be a consequence or foreseeable result of kidnapping, kidnapping is not a consequence of murder. Once the victim is killed, there is no crime of kidnapping even if the body is moved after death. (People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 498.)

The People concede that the trial court should have identified the target offense as kidnapping. But assuming, without deciding, that appellant has not forfeited this issue on appeal by his failure to object below to the instruction as given, we conclude the error was harmless, because there is no "reasonable likelihood" the jury misunderstood or misapplied the law in this case. (People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 183, 184.)

Page 19