Farmer v. Commissioner of Correction, 165 Conn. App. 455

John Farmer was convicted after a jury found him guilty of kidnapping in the second degree and third‑degree assault; sentenced to an effective 20 years.
At trial the jury acquitted on charged first‑degree sexual assault and kidnapping counts but convicted on lesser included offenses based on facts that Farmer assaulted a woman, drove her to a remote dirt road, sexually engaged with her, then kept her confined in his car and at his mother’s house overnight before letting her go the next morning.
Farmer later filed a habeas petition arguing his kidnapping conviction was obtained under pre‑Salamon law and the trial court failed to give a Salamon instruction (i.e., that kidnapping requires restraint exceeding what is necessary to commit another crime).
The habeas court found the trial court’s failure to give the Salamon instruction was error but harmless and denied relief; Farmer appealed the habeas denial.
The Appellate Court affirmed, holding the evidence showed prolonged movement and confinement (6–7 hours, movement between towns and overnight confinement) that had independent criminal significance beyond the assaults.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to give Salamon instruction requires reversal of kidnapping conviction	Farmer: trial court erred by not instructing jury that kidnapping requires intent to restrain beyond what is necessary to commit assault; conviction must be set aside per Salamon	State: even if instruction was omitted, the omission was harmless because evidence showed restraint exceeded incidental restraint needed for assault	Held: Omission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction affirmed

State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 949 A.2d 1092 (2008) (establishes that kidnapping requires restraint beyond that incidental to another crime)
Luurtsema v. Commissioner of Correction, 299 Conn. 740, 12 A.3d 817 (2011) (Salamon applies retroactively on collateral attack subject to harmless‑error and contextual exceptions)
State v. Hampton, 293 Conn. 435, 988 A.2d 167 (2009) (harmless‑error standard articulated for Salamon instructional errors)
State v. Nelson, 118 Conn. App. 831, 986 A.2d 311 (2010) (substantial length of restraint supports inference of intent to prevent liberation beyond that needed for another crime)
State v. Strong, 122 Conn. App. 131, 999 A.2d 765 (2010) (prolonged restraint and movement between towns not merely incidental to other offenses)
State v. Jordan, 129 Conn. App. 215, 19 A.3d 241 (2011) (control of victims during lengthy confinement indicates restraint exceeding that necessary for assaults)
State v. Winot, 294 Conn. 753, 988 A.2d 188 (2010) (Salamon rule inapplicable where no reasonable jury could find kidnapping was incidental to other crimes)
Eric M. v. Commissioner of Correction, 153 Conn. App. 837, 108 A.3d 1128 (2014) (discusses harmlessness framework and application of Salamon principles on collateral review)