Epps v. Comm'r of Corr., 175 A.3d 558

Kevin Epps was convicted of first‑degree assault and first‑degree kidnapping for severely injuring his then‑fiancée in his parked van.
After his conviction became final, this court (1) clarified that kidnapping requires restraint beyond that incidental to another crime (State v. Salamon) and (2) applied that clarification retroactively to collateral attacks.
Epps sought habeas relief arguing the trial court omitted the Salamon limiting instruction on the restraint element; the habeas court granted relief, finding the omission not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Appellate Court held the claim was subject to procedural default but that Epps overcame default and that the instructional error was not harmless given conflicting trial testimony.
While certiorari was pending, this court decided Hinds, holding Salamon claims are not subject to procedural default and granting habeas relief; the respondent then sought to raise the separate question whether a stricter harmless‑error standard (Brecht) applies in collateral proceedings.
This court ultimately concluded it had improvidently granted certification on the Brecht/Neder question here because the respondent had not adequately preserved or argued the alternative harmless‑error standard, and dismissed the appeal.

Issue	Epps' Argument	Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether Salamon claims in collateral habeas proceedings are subject to procedural default	Salamon errors are reviewable on collateral attack (not procedurally defaulted)	Initially argued the claim should be assessed under harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt if reached	Court: Not decided here as Hinds addressed procedural default; this case not suitable to revisit the issue given procedural posture
Which harmless‑error standard governs collateral proceedings: Brecht (substantial and injurious effect) or Neder (beyond a reasonable doubt)	Epps relied on Neder/Neder‑type review to show omitted element was uncontested/overwhelmingly supported	Respondent sought to press Brecht standard after Hinds but did not preserve an alternative argument earlier	Court: Declined to decide; certification to address Brecht v. Neder was improvidently granted because respondent failed to adequately present the alternative standard below
Whether the omission of the Salamon instruction was harmless under the applicable standard	Omission was not harmless given conflicting testimony about restraint; thus relief warranted	Had previously argued harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; did not argue alternative standard adequately	Court: Did not resolve; Appellate Court had found error not harmless but Supreme Court dismissed appeal for procedural reasons

Hinds v. Commissioner of Correction, 321 Conn. 56 (Conn. 2016) (held Salamon claims are not subject to procedural default and granted habeas relief)
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (established "substantial and injurious effect" standard for harmless error in collateral review)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard for omitted elements on direct review; requires omitted element be uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence)
State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509 (2008) (interpreted kidnapping to require restraint beyond that incidental to another crime)