State of Connecticut v. Gregory B. Winot

Summary

The court held that the kidnapping statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied because, although the restraint was brief, the statute required intentional restraint with intent to prevent liberation, and the evidence strongly established that intent. The court also held that the victim's mother's statement was properly excluded because it contained hearsay within hearsay unsupported by an applicable exception. The judgment was reversed in part and remanded with direction to affirm the kidnapping conviction. Justice Katz, joined by Justice Zarella, dissenting, would have remanded for a new trial under the rule requiring the jury to determine whether the restraint was merely incidental to another crime.