State of Connecticut v. Gregory B. Winot — Katz, J., dissenting

Summary

The dissent would reverse the defendant's kidnapping conviction and remand for a new trial because the evidence could support a finding that the restraint was merely incidental to another offense. It reasoned that the jury, rather than the appellate court, should decide whether the restraint exceeded what was necessary to commit that other offense under the governing kidnapping rule. The dissent declined to address the constitutional vagueness issue because the nonconstitutional jury-instruction issue would resolve the appeal.