153 Conn.App. 837
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Petitioner (Eric M.) was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of first‑degree kidnapping, first‑degree unlawful restraint, second‑degree assault, and spousal sexual assault based on an incident where the victim was bound, gagged, handcuffed and restrained over a period of about five hours, during which a brief sexual assault occurred.
- At trial (2001), the jury did not receive a Salamon instruction (a jury instruction limiting kidnapping liability when restraint is merely incidental to another crime) because Salamon was decided later (2008).
- Petitioner filed a habeas petition arguing that under Salamon and related decisions his due process right to a fair trial was violated and that his kidnapping convictions should be vacated or retried.
- The habeas court granted the respondent Commissioner of Correction’s motion for summary judgment, finding the absence of a Salamon instruction harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the duration and nature of the restraints.
- Petitioner appealed the grant of summary judgment; the appellate court affirmed, concluding the restraints exceeded those incidental to the sexual assault and the error (if any) was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to give a Salamon instruction requires reversal or new trial on kidnapping counts | Petitioner: Salamon narrowed kidnapping law and must be applied retroactively on collateral review; absence of instruction infected his kidnapping convictions | Respondent: Even under Salamon, evidence shows restraints were independent and extensive; any instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Affirmed: error (if any) was harmless; restraints not merely incidental, so no new trial needed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 949 A.2d 1092 (establishes rule limiting kidnapping liability when restraint is merely incidental to another crime)
- State v. Sanseverino, 287 Conn. 608, 949 A.2d 1156 (applies and clarifies Salamon principles)
- State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn. 418, 953 A.2d 45 (remedy for Salamon instructional error is reversal and remand for new trial when not harmless)
- Luurtsema v. Commissioner of Correction, 299 Conn. 740, 12 A.3d 817 (Salamon rule applies retroactively on collateral review in many cases; presumes benefit to incarcerated persons)
- State v. Hampton, 293 Conn. 435, 988 A.2d 167 (sets harmless‑error test for failure to give Salamon instruction; court may find the omission harmless if no reasonable juror could view restraint as merely incidental)
- State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447, 10 A.3d 942 (confirms failure to give Salamon instruction is not reversible per se and may be harmless on the facts)