crime). The State does not contend, however, that the incidental rule does not apply because of the dismissal of the underlying sexual abuse charge. As a result, we assume the incidental rule applies in this case. 5 . Like the confinement cases, the cases considering whether there was sufficient removal to support a kidnapping charge when a victim is moved from one room to another within an existing structure have reached differing results. In some cases, the movement from one room to another within a structure has been held insufficient removal to support a kidnapping charge. See, e.g., Buggs, 547 P.2d at 731 ("The removal of a rape victim from room to room within a dwelling solely for the convenience and comfort of the rapist is not a kidnapping.”); Goodhue, 833 A.2d at 868 (<HOLDING>). In other cases, such removal has been found
holding evidence of sexual assault relevant to show defendants motive in kidnapping victim holding that where the violence against the victim and the trespass to her property combine in a continuing unbroken sequence of events both the crime of assault and the crime of robbery are ongoing during the assault holding movement of victim from kitchen to bathroom did not exceed confinement or removal inherent in the commission of the crime of sexual assault holding that sexual assault of a child qualified as crime of violence under 18 usc  16 holding that merger did not apply because sexual assault was not a lesser included offense of seconddegree kidnapping involving sexual assault