170 Conn. App. 415
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- In 2003 White entered a teenage complainant’s home purportedly selling magazines, asked to use the bathroom, then closed the door, told her he had a gun and ordered her to sit; he touched her elbow and attempted to lead her upstairs; he left after about ten minutes.
- White was convicted by a jury of second‑degree kidnapping with a firearm and second‑degree burglary with a firearm; burglary conviction later reversed on appeal and nolle entered on retrial.
- After Salamon (2008) clarified that a kidnapping conviction cannot rest on confinement or movement that is merely incidental to another crime, White brought a collateral habeas petition arguing the jury should have been instructed on incidental restraint (the Salamon rule) and that its omission was prejudicial.
- The habeas court granted summary judgment for White, holding a Salamon instruction was required and that failure to give it was not harmless error; the Commissioner of Correction appealed.
- The Appellate Court affirmed, applying Salamon and later Supreme Court guidance (Fields, Luurtsema, Hinds) and finding the omission could have contributed to the verdict given the short duration, limited movement, and the ambiguity about the underlying crime supporting the burglary charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Salamon incidental‑restraint instruction was required | White: jury should have been instructed that restraint incidental to another crime cannot support kidnapping | Commissioner: Salamon instruction not required under facts; Golder controls | Court: Salamon instruction was required when kidnapping and another substantive offense charged (Fields) and was warranted on these facts |
| Whether omission of Salamon instruction was harmless | White: omission was harmful because restraint was brief, minimal movement, and jury could have found restraint incidental | Commissioner: any restraint was not incidental; burglary was complete or evidence overwhelming | Court: omission was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; factors under Salamon weigh in petitioner’s favor |
| Whether burglary and alleged kidnapping were temporally/separately distinct | White: actions were continuous and could be seen as part of burglary, making incidental‑restraint question jury issue | Commissioner: burglary was complete once entry/representation of gun occurred, later acts unnecessary | Court: jury could reasonably view the conduct as a continuous course of burglary; timing did not make Salamon instruction unnecessary |
| Remedy for instructional error on collateral review | White: entitled to relief (new trial on kidnapping) | Commissioner: harmless or other relief appropriate; preserves objection to harmless‑error standard on collateral review | Court: reversal of kidnapping conviction and remand for new trial is appropriate; double jeopardy issues left for trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509 (Conn. 2008) (announcing that restraints incidental to another crime cannot support kidnapping unless restraint had independent criminal significance)
- State v. Fields, 302 Conn. 236 (Conn. 2011) (Salamon instruction ordinarily required when kidnapping charged with another substantive offense)
- Luurtsema v. Commissioner of Correction, 299 Conn. 740 (Conn. 2011) (Salamon rule applies retroactively on collateral review)
- Hinds v. Commissioner of Correction, 321 Conn. 56 (Conn. 2016) (harmless‑error standard on omission of Salamon instruction: state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the omission did not contribute to verdict)
- State v. White, 97 Conn. App. 763 (Conn. App. 2006) (direct criminal appeal recounting trial facts and conviction)