State v. Ward, No. 18897.

• Decision Date: 18 September 2012
• Docket Number: No. 18897.
• Citation: 51 A.3d 970,306 Conn. 718
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. James T. WARD.

306 Conn. 718

51 A.3d 970

STATE of Connecticut

v.James T. WARD.

No. 18897.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued March 19, 2012.

Decided Sept. 18, 2012.^*

Bruce R. Lockwood, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Patricia M. Froehlich, state's attorney, Matthew A. Crockett, assistant state's attorney, and Andrew J. Slitt, deputy assistant state's attorney, for the appellant (state).

Pamela S. Nagy, special public defender, for the appellee (defendant).

ROGERS, C.J., and NORCOTT, PALMER, ZARELLA, McLACHLAN, EVELEIGH and HARPER, Js.^**

PALMER, J.

A jury found the defendant, James T. Ward, guilty of the crimes of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a–70 (a)(1), and kidnapping in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a–92 (a)(2)(A).¹ The trial court rendered judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict as to the charge of sexual assault in the first degree, but granted the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on the kidnapping charge on the ground that the state had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to prevent the liberation of the victim ² for a longer period of time or to a greater degree than that which was necessary to commit the sexual assault as required by State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 542, 949 A.2d 1092 (2008).³ The state, with the trial court's permission, appeals from the judgment of the trial court vacating the jury's verdict of guilty on the kidnapping charge. We conclude that the trial court improperly granted the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal and rendered judgment of not guilty on the charge of kidnapping in the first degree. In addition, we disagree with the defendant's claim that the judgment may be affirmed on the alternate ground that the kidnapping statute, as applied to the defendant's conduct, is unconstitutionally vague. We also disagree with the defendant's claim that the trial court's instructions on the charge of kidnapping in the first degree were misleading and that, as a result, he is entitled to a new trial. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court only as to the kidnapping charge and remand the case to that court with direction to render judgment in accordance with the jury verdict.

The jury reasonably could have found the following facts, which are set forth in our decision in the defendant's separate appeal challenging his conviction of sexual assault in the first degree.⁴ “On November 21, 1988, the defendant sexually assaulted the victim at her home in Killingly. On that date the victim, a married twenty year old woman, was home alone. The house, located in a rural area near Route 101, was a small cape-style building with an unfurnished second floor and exterior doors located in the kitchen and living room. At approximately 11:45 a.m., while the victim was cleaning the house, she heard the kitchen doorbell ring. When the victim opened the kitchen door, she expected to see her neighbor and close friend who frequently visited. Instead, she saw the defendant at the door, whom she had never seen before. The defendant was approximately twenty-four years of age with brown shoulder length hair. He was approximately five feet and eleven inches in height and weighed approximately 190 pounds. In contrast, the victim was a little more than five feet tall and weighed approximately 100 pounds. The defendant told the victim that his car had overheated and he asked for some water. The defendant also asked if he could use the bathroom. The victim agreed. While the defendant was using the bathroom, the victim filled a large glass jar with water from the kitchen sink. When the defendant returned from the bathroom, he stated that he might need to use the telephone. The only telephone in the house was located in the living room near the hallway. After deciding not to use the telephone, the defendant grabbed the jar of water that the victim had left on the kitchen counter and left. When the victim looked outside to see where the defendant had gone, she saw him outside pacing. The victim then resumed cleaning.

“Approximately five minutes later, the kitchen doorbell rang again. When the victim opened the door, she saw the defendant standing there with the empty jar. He asked for more water. The victim took the empty jar, left the defendant standing outside, closed the door, but did not lock it, and went to the sink to fill the jar. As she was filling the jar at the kitchen sink, the defendant pushed open the kitchen door and quickly came to her. The defendant grabbed a metal knife sharpening tool from the butcher block of knives on the kitchen counter. [The metal knife sharpening tool was approximately one foot in length and had a point on the end.] He then wrapped his arms around the victim and held the knife sharpening tool to her neck. He told the victim that ‘if you don't do ... what I tell you to do, I'm going to kill you. And if you do do what I say, then everything will be okay.’ The defendant started to drag the victim toward the hallway. The victim could not escape because the defendant was significantly larger and held her ‘very tightly.’ While holding the metal knife sharpening tool against her neck, the defendant dragged and pushed the victim down the hallway into the master bedroom [which contained a window]. The defendant pushed the victim down onto the bed and unbuttoned her shirt. The defendant took off the victim's pants and underwear and threw them onto the floor. The victim continued to plead for him to stop. The defendant pulled the victim from the bed onto the floor. The defendant made the victim lie on her back with one of her hands over her head. The defendant laid on top of the victim [still holding the knife sharpening tool]. The defendant then stuck his tongue in the victim's mouth and tried to kiss her. Next, he stuck his tongue inside the victim's vagina. [The victim estimated that this occurred for one minute or less.] The defendant then took his pants off, got on top of the victim, and rubbed his penis against her vagina. After that, he ejaculated on the victim's stomach. [According to the victim, this took place within less than one minute.] The defendant then got up, put on his pants and left the house. The victim estimated that she was in the bedroom with the defendant for approximately ‘[ten] to [fifteen] minutes.’

“A few minutes after the defendant had left the room, the victim put her clothes on and cleaned herself in the bathroom. She then proceeded into the kitchen and discovered that the defendant had left with the knife sharpening tool and water jar. She then telephoned her neighbor, who arrived shortly thereafter and found the victim crying ‘like a little baby.’ Thereafter, the police were summoned and obtained a statement from the victim. In her statement, the victim indicated that, after the defendant had finished sexually assaulting her, he ran out the door. The victim also indicated in her statement that when she looked out the window to see if the defendant was gone, she saw him running across the road.

“As part of the investigation, the police took the victim's clothing and photographed her home. The police also made a composite sketch based upon the victim's description of the defendant. In addition, the police obtained blood and DNA samples from the victim....

“The state police closed the case in March, 1990. Subsequently, on June 2, 2005, the state police reopened the case after receiving information indicating that the defendant ... might have been involved in the crime. Pursuant to a search warrant, the police obtained an oral swab and palm prints from the defendant. This evidence was submitted to the Connecticut state forensic laboratory.

“A subsequent examination of the victim's blouse and sweater conducted at the state forensic laboratory detected the presence of semen. In 2006, DNA testing and comparison with known samples from the victim, her husband and the defendant revealed that the defendant's DNA profile was consistent with the DNA profile of the semen on the victim's clothing. The likelihood that someone else had the same DNA profile was less than one in three hundred million.” State v. Ward, 306 Conn. 698, 701–74, 52 A.3d 591, 597 (2012).

In early 2007, the police arrested the defendant and charged him with one count of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of § 53a–70 (a)(1) and one count of kidnapping in the first degree in violation of § 53a–92 (a)(2)(A). The defendant was then tried before a jury. He elected not to testify at trial. As to the charge of first degree sexual assault, defense counsel conceded during closing argument that the defendant sexually assaulted the victim.⁵ After the jury found the defendant guilty of both charges, the defendant filed a motion for judgment of acquittal with respect to the kidnapping charge.⁶ Shortly before sentencing, the trial court granted the motion, concluding, in reliance on State v. Salamon, supra, 287 Conn. at 509, 949 A.2d 1092, that “no reasonable jury could have found under [the facts adduced at trial] that the defendant kidnapped the victim as defined by our statutes.” The trial court rendered judgment of guilty as to the sexual assault charge and sentenced the defendant to a term of twenty years imprisonment on that count. With respect to the kidnapping charge, however, the trial court vacated the guilty verdict and rendered judgment of not guilty. This appeal by the state followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

I

The state claims that the trial court improperly granted the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal after the jury had found the defendant guilty of kidnapping in the first degree. Specifically, the state argues that the jury reasonably could have found from the evidence adduced at trial that the defendant's restraint of the victim was not merely incidental to the sexual...