With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". asked to consider revising the Rich tripartite test by eliminating the detection and escape prongs and focusing entirely upon the substantial risk of harm beyond that ordinarily incident to the underlying felony. This position was advocated in the pages of the Iowa Law Review and has some support in the caselaw. Kanellis, 67 Iowa L.Rev. at 800-01. We declined in Hardin to revise the Rich tripartite test. See 359 N.W.2d at 190. 4 . In most of the incidental rule cases, the defendant is convicted of an underlying crime such as robbery or sexual abuse. Here, the underlying crime of sexual abuse was dismissed prior to trial. There is a question whether the incidental rule applies when the underlying charge is dismissed. Cf. People v. Salimi, 159 A.D.2d 658, 552 N.Y.S.2d 964, 964-65 (1990) (<HOLDING>); State v. French, 139 Vt. 320, 428 A.2d 1087,

A: holding that a court must only look to the statutory definition not the underlying circumstances of the crime to determine whether a given offense is by its nature a crime of violence for purposes of 18 usc  16
B: holding that although the specific underlying felony is an essential element of felonymurder the government is not required to include the elements of the underlying felony or state the specific means by which it alleges the defendant committed the underlying felony
C: holding kidnapping and underlying crime could be merged even when defendant has been acquitted of underlying charge
D: holding that the detention supporting aggravated kidnapping must have significant independence from the underlying crime because to hold otherwise would transform virtually every rape and robbery into a kidnaping as well
C.