Bell v. Commissioner of Correction, 339 Conn. 79

In 2001 Bell robbed two Friendly’s restaurants, ordering employees to open safes and then forcing them into walk‑in refrigerators while he took money; he used a wooden coat hanger under his jacket to simulate a gun.
Bell was convicted of two counts of first‑degree kidnapping (among other offenses) and sentenced to a total effective term of 36 years.
After Bell’s trial, this court decided State v. Salamon, holding that when a defendant is charged with kidnapping plus another crime the jury must be instructed that confinement or movement that is merely incidental to the other crime cannot support a kidnapping conviction.
Salamon was held retroactive in habeas actions (Luurtsema), and Bell raised a Salamon claim in a habeas petition challenging his kidnapping convictions.
The habeas court found the lack of a Salamon instruction harmless; the Appellate Court reversed (applying Neder); this Court reviewed whether the omission was harmless under the correct standard.
This Court, applying the Brecht standard (as clarified in Banks), held that the omission was not shown harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because facts here left ambiguous whether the confinement occurred to facilitate escape (as in Banks) or to incapacitate victims during the robbery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether omission of a Salamon instruction at trial was harmless on habeas review	Bell: omission violated due process and was not harmless because restraint may have been incidental to completing the robberies	Commissioner: omission was harmless because the confinement reduced detection risk and had independent criminal significance	Held: Under Brecht, record is ambiguous; cannot conclude error was harmless — new trial on kidnapping counts required
Which harmlessness standard applies on collateral review	(Appellate Ct.) Neder standard favored reversal	Commissioner: Brecht standard should apply on collateral review	Held: Brecht v. Abrahamson governs harmlessness on habeas collateral review (per Banks)
Whether the facts here are like Banks (post‑takings restraint to facilitate escape) so harmlessness can be decided as matter of law	Bell: confinement occurred during robberies to incapacitate victims while removing money, so jury could find restraint incidental	Commissioner: confinement prevented summoning assistance and reduced detection, so it had independent significance	Held: Unlike Banks, facts permit a reasonable jury to find the restraint incidental; omission not harmless as matter of law

State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509 (establishes jury instruction rule when restraint may be incidental to another crime)
Banks v. Commissioner of Correction, 339 Conn. 1 (clarifies harmlessness standard on collateral review and when post‑robbery restraints may bear independent significance)
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (harmless‑error standard for federal habeas: error requires relief only if it had substantial and injurious effect)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (harmless‑error test applied on direct federal appeal; contrasted with Brecht)
Luurtsema v. Commissioner of Correction, 299 Conn. 740 (Salamon held retroactive in habeas actions)
Peck v. United States, 106 F.3d 450 (2d Cir.) (explains de novo review under Brecht where jury was misinstructed on an element)
O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432 (explains burden/equipoise approach when assessing harmlessness)
State v. Sawyer, 279 Conn. 331 (discusses "undermine confidence" test for prejudice in nonconstitutional error)