The following definitions are applicable to this part:
(1) “Restrain” means to restrict a person's movements intentionally and unlawfully in such a manner as to interfere substantially with his liberty by moving him from one place to another, or by confining him either in the place where the restriction commences or in a place to which he has been moved, without consent. As used herein “without consent” means, but is not limited to, (A) deception and (B) any means whatever, including acquiescence of the victim, if he is a child less than sixteen years old or an incompetent person and the parent, guardian or other person or institution having lawful control or custody of him has not acquiesced in the movement or confinement.
(2) “Abduct” means to restrain a person with intent to prevent his liberation by either (A) secreting or holding him in a place where he is not likely to be found, or (B) using or threatening to use physical force or intimidation.
(3) “Relative” means a parent, ancestor, brother, sister, uncle or aunt.
(1969, P.A. 828, S. 92; P.A. 92-260, S. 35.)
History: P.A. 92-260 amended Subdivs. (1) and (2) to replace Subpara. designators “(a)” and “(b)” with “(A)” and “(B)”, respectively.
Language is clear and does not lend itself to any equivocal interpretation. 173 C. 165. Cited. 177 C. 335; 179 C. 328; 188 C. 406; 191 C. 604; 200 C. 586; 209 C. 733; 211 C. 672; 215 C. 716; 216 C. 647; 219 C. 489; 225 C. 347; 226 C. 618. Terms “restrained” and “abducted” interpreted to include frightening victim to remain in bedroom through repeated physical and verbal abuse. 258 C. 510. The point at which an intended interference with liberty under Subdiv. (1) crosses the line to become an intended prevention of liberation under Subdiv. (2) is not entirely clear. 287 C. 509.
Cited. 20 CA 437; 46 CA 486; 55 CA 447.
Subdiv. (1):
Cited. 180 C. 565; 195 C. 253; 198 C. 147; Id., 430; Id., 537; 202 C. 520; 215 C. 173; 237 C. 284.
Cited. 5 CA 586; 13 CA 667; 17 CA 339; 19 CA 396; 30 CA 281; 31 CA 312.
Subdiv. (2):
Cited. 172 C. 22; 177 C. 637; 178 C. 634; 182 C. 449; 199 C. 537.
Cited. 36 CA 190. To prove unlawful restraint, the state had to prove that defendant abducted alleged victim by restraining her with intent to prevent her liberation by using or threatening to use physical force or intimidation. 81 CA 320.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
113
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case:
State v. Salamon, 949 A.2d 1092 (Conn. 2008).
State v. Salamon, 949 A.2d 1092 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 189× “31, reprinted in 28A Conn. Gen.Stat. Ann. § 53a-91 (West 2007) p.”
State v. DeJesus, 953 A.2d 45 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 49× “[9] In Salamon , we reconsidered our prior interpretation of the kidnapping statutes, General Statutes § 53a-91 et seq. Id., at 528, 949 A.”
State v. Winot, 988 A.2d 188 (Conn. 2010).
· cites it 20× “liberation"; General Statutes § 53a-91 (2); or restrict the jury's role in determining whether it has been proven.”
State v. Kitchens, 10 A.3d 942 (Conn. 2011).
· cites it 8× “[2] General Statutes § 53a-94 (a) provides: "A person is guilty of kidnapping in the second degree when he abducts another person.”
Luurtsema v. Comm'r of Corr., 12 A.3d 817 (Conn. 2011).
· cites it 12× “2d 1092 , we had cause to revisit our interpretation of the kidnapping statutes, General Statutes § 53a-91 et seq. Although we acknowledged that our interpretation of the kidnapping statutes in Luurtsema traced its origins as far back as State v.”
State v. Luurtsema, 811 A.2d 223 (Conn. 2002).
· cites it 10× “General Statutes § 53a-91 (2) defines abduct as restrain[ing] a person with intent to prevent his liberation by .”
State v. Sanseverino, 949 A.2d 1156 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 10× “528 -41, we reconsidered our long-standing interpretation of our kidnapping statutes, General Statutes §§ 53a-91 through 53a-94a.”
State v. Tweedy, 594 A.2d 906 (Conn. 1991).
· cites it 12× “on October 2, 1988, at [the victim’s apartment] in New Haven, [the defendant] abducted [the victim], and restrained her with the intent to violate her or abuse her sexually” in violation of the statute. In the defendant’s view, there is “simply no evidence” from which the jury…”
State v. Niemeyer, 782 A.2d 658 (Conn. 2001).
· cites it 7× “Under General Statutes § 53a-91; see footnote 1 of this opinion; “ ‘[r]estrain’ means to restrict a person’s movements intentionally and unlawfully in such a manner as to interfere substantially with his liberty by .”
State v. Youngs, 904 A.2d 1240 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 10× “General Statutes § 53a-91 (1).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.”
Franko v. Comm'r of Corr., 139 A.3d 798 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 10× “In order to prove that the petitioner was guilty of kidnapping in the second degree, the state had the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he "abducted" the victim, meaning that he "restrain[ed] [her] with [the] intent to prevent [her] liberation by either .”
State v. Suggs, 553 A.2d 1110 (Conn. 1989).
· cites it 10× “” See General Statutes § 53a-91 (2). 14 The defendant maintains that the field behind Johnnie’s Garage could not possibly be construed to be “a place where [one] is not likely to be found.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-91(1) — 7 cases
State v. DeJesus, 953 A.2d 45 (Conn. 2008).
“[9] In Salamon , we reconsidered our prior interpretation of the kidnapping statutes, General Statutes § 53a-91 et seq. Id., at 528, 949 A.”
State v. Salamon, 949 A.2d 1092 (Conn. 2008).
“31, reprinted in 28A Conn. Gen.Stat. Ann. § 53a-91 (West 2007) p.”
State v. Winot, 988 A.2d 188 (Conn. 2010).
“liberation"; General Statutes § 53a-91 (2); or restrict the jury's role in determining whether it has been proven.”
State v. Kitchens, 10 A.3d 942 (Conn. 2011).
“[2] General Statutes § 53a-94 (a) provides: "A person is guilty of kidnapping in the second degree when he abducts another person.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-91(1)(A) — 1 case
State v. Salamon, 949 A.2d 1092 (Conn. 2008).
“31, reprinted in 28A Conn. Gen.Stat. Ann. § 53a-91 (West 2007) p.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-91(1)(B) — 1 case
State v. DeJesus, 953 A.2d 45 (Conn. 2008).
“[9] In Salamon , we reconsidered our prior interpretation of the kidnapping statutes, General Statutes § 53a-91 et seq. Id., at 528, 949 A.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-91(2) — 3 cases
State v. Salamon, 949 A.2d 1092 (Conn. 2008).
“31, reprinted in 28A Conn. Gen.Stat. Ann. § 53a-91 (West 2007) p.”
State v. DeJesus, 953 A.2d 45 (Conn. 2008).
“[9] In Salamon , we reconsidered our prior interpretation of the kidnapping statutes, General Statutes § 53a-91 et seq. Id., at 528, 949 A.”
State v. Winot, 988 A.2d 188 (Conn. 2010).
“liberation"; General Statutes § 53a-91 (2); or restrict the jury's role in determining whether it has been proven.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-91(2)(A) — 2 cases
State v. Salamon, 949 A.2d 1092 (Conn. 2008).
“31, reprinted in 28A Conn. Gen.Stat. Ann. § 53a-91 (West 2007) p.”
State v. DeJesus, 953 A.2d 45 (Conn. 2008).
“[9] In Salamon , we reconsidered our prior interpretation of the kidnapping statutes, General Statutes § 53a-91 et seq. Id., at 528, 949 A.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-91(2)(B) — 1 case
State v. Salamon, 949 A.2d 1092 (Conn. 2008).
“31, reprinted in 28A Conn. Gen.Stat. Ann. § 53a-91 (West 2007) p.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.