State of Connecticut v. Gregory B. Winot

Summary

The court held that the kidnapping statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant because it required intentional restraint coupled with intent to prevent liberation, and the evidence strongly established that intent despite the brief restraint. The court also held that the victim's mother's statement was properly excluded because it contained an additional layer of hearsay for which no exception applied. The judgment was reversed in part and remanded with direction to affirm the kidnapping conviction, while the judgment was affirmed in all other respects. Katz, J., dissenting, joined by Zarella, J., would have required a new trial because the restraint could have been incidental to another offense and that issue should have been submitted to a properly instructed jury.