about more so in the case law talks about a change in environment or the context of the environment or the nature of harmony instruction doesn't fully instruct the jury on the incidental to element not with the one that you were complaining about so now is this all harmless error now you're on unfortunately my client didn't address the pardon instruction in the state court below and i not only did not complain about the partner destruction of the opening brief in two different places like expressways that i have no quarrel with it but if there is a problem with the special instruction that was given here if i am correct in the argument that i raised on  no other instruction that was given explained the correct standards of the jury so in reviewing whether or not there was harmless error here in looking at the pardon instruction it did not explain the correct standard and in fact it mis instructed the jury on the in these people a long distance back to the state finally took them out into the outside it's hard to look at the facts and not conclude that there was a kidnapping increased the risk of harm when you look at the facts in this case mr dorsey didn't rule two people apparently distance within the store but he was moving them to the state of moving him to accomplish his objective of robbery most of the time most of the temporal element here was spent moving them to the safe finding someone who knew how to open the safe taking the money out of the safety putting it into a bag and then by comparison a brief period of time and a much less you do too or i go down you do too mr dorsey didn't make those threats your honor and he was armed with a firearm but still what is the increase in risk of harm if a robber is going to be accomplished with a firearm there's already a risk of harm in the robbery especially if it's accomplished by forces here and there is a risk of harm any time a firearm is brandished increasing the risk of harm here is the parent lea perhaps just psychological harm with my client thanks to these people i and he challenges to the ironies direction and as far as leaking it and looking at the instruction in terms of considering the instructions as a whole or as part of a harmless error argument or analysis we maintain there is no fact the parents directions basically says you cannot consider or you can't you cannot use incidental movement to find th context and that the movement substantially increased risk of harm under that two prong daniels test instead of reading all the evidence before the context of this trial because the attorneys in closing argument would not have argued the difference in movement from the floor to the space or whatever point in time or place they chose to be incidental to the robbery they couldn't argue it that way because they were constrained germans to argue that points that yuri was charged with your argument might be a good argument and maybe i'm considering the circumstances seems to me that was they got from the safe had the robber bolted and ran from the store along with the one thing he took one of the employees hostage held a van on her i believe had the other employee carry the money to him carry the money so he had two hostages and he says he's implicating him in the robbery any walked outside many feet into the arms of the police and in fact it caught and and it at that point it explodes because the one employee bolt the other one steps in front of him so no you're not your own and if you please excuse me this is something i'm going to say that i've never argued in the race before and i don't mean to blindside the court or opposing counsel rodney is an ongoing crime it's not completed until the robber reaches a place of comparative safety i've been arguing all but he did he had one of the employees carry the money out that was the robbery i mean robbery the object is take the money most robbers yeah but still we come back to whether that all the instructions taken as a whole weren't correct in this case they're not and i want to throw one more thing into the next which i noticed last night i was reading the statute again and again but notice for the first time that the phrase substantial distance does not exist in the statute substantial