129 Conn. App. 215
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Shawn Jordan was convicted by a jury of burglary in the first degree, two counts of kidnapping in the second degree, two counts of assault in the first degree, and one count of sexual assault in the first degree.
- The crimes occurred in the early hours of June 19, 2004, at the home of victim D, where D and E were assaulted while Jordan had a gun and a stick.
- D was dragged back upstairs by her hair, forced to clean blood from walls, and both victims were assaulted and sexually assaulted with a mop handle and other implements.
- E was stomped, punched, sodomized with a mop handle and a stick, and subjected to acts of violence including pepper, bleach, and urination inflicted by Jordan.
- Jordan also forcibly removed E from the house, transported D to a hospital, and ultimately left both victims injured and seeking medical care.
- The trial court issued a Salamon-related instruction on kidnapping after Salamon was decided, and Jordan challenged its absence of a Salamon-compliant instruction prior to Salamon.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Salamon error on kidnapping instructions was harmless | State contends error was harmless given strong evidence of restraint exceeding incidental bounds. | Jordan asserts lack of Salamon-compliant instruction prejudiced the defense on kidnapping counts. | Harmless error; evidence showed restraint exceeded what was necessary and thus Salamon instruction not required to change result. |
| Whether trial court properly refused diminished capacity instruction | State argues evidence did not support diminished capacity to negate specific intent. | Jordan contends testimony of rage warrants diminished capacity guidance for intent. | Court properly refused diminished capacity instruction; evidence did not establish the necessary link between mental state and specific intent. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509 (Conn. 2008) (defines that kidnapping requires greater restraint than that necessary for the underlying crime)
- State v. Sanseverino, 287 Conn. 608 (Conn. 2008) (reversed kidnapping conviction where Salamon instruction absent pre-Salamon; remanded for new trial)
- State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn. 418 (Conn. 2008) (reversed kidnapping conviction for similar instructional error)
- State v. Thompson, 118 Conn. App. 140 (Conn. App. 2009) (remanded for new trial where confinement duration did not support inference)
- State v. Hampton, 293 Conn. 435 (Conn. 2009) (lack of Salamon instruction deemed harmless where other convictions exist)
- State v. Nelson, 118 Conn. App. 831 (Conn. App. 2010) (affirmed kidnapping conviction despite no Salamon instruction)
- State v. Winot, 294 Conn. 753 (Conn. 2010) (kidnapping confinement duration not determinative; focus on whether restraint was incidental)
- Pagano v. Pagano, 23 Conn. App. 447 (Conn. App. 1990) (evidence on intent relevant to diminished capacity defense when specific intent is required)