You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

State v. Wohler

Citations: 30 Conn. App. 571; 621 A.2d 751; 1993 Conn. App. LEXIS 104Docket: 11030

Court: Connecticut Appellate Court; March 9, 1993; Connecticut; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves an appeal by a defendant convicted of fifth-degree larceny for the theft of services under General Statutes 53a-125a (a) and 53a-119 (7. F). The defendant, an assistant superintendent of a water department, was accused of diverting department resources to benefit a customer, resulting in a financial saving of $750 for the customer. The trial court found him guilty, citing his role in facilitating the installation of a water line at no cost to the customer. However, the appellate court reversed the conviction, finding insufficient evidence of intent to benefit both himself and another, as required by the statute. The defendant did not receive any personal gain from the actions taken. Additionally, the charging document incorrectly cited a different degree of larceny, though the error did not impact the appellate decision. The court's reversal led to an acquittal, underscoring the necessity for precise evidence of intent in larceny cases. Other charges, including second-degree larceny and conspiracy, resulted in partial acquittals in separate proceedings.

Legal Issues Addressed

Error in Charging Document

Application: The charging document incorrectly cited larceny in the fourth degree instead of the appropriate statute for fifth-degree larceny, which did not affect the appellate court's reversal of the conviction.

Reasoning: The charging document mistakenly cited larceny in the fourth degree under statute 53a-125 (a) instead of the correct statute 53a-125a (a).

Intent Requirement for Larceny Conviction

Application: The defendant must have intended to derive a benefit for himself and another, but the appellate court found insufficient evidence of such intent, leading to the reversal of the conviction.

Reasoning: The state's allegations specified that the defendant had to prove he derived a benefit for both himself and another, but the record showed he received no personal gain.

Larceny under General Statutes 53a-119

Application: Larceny involves wrongfully taking or withholding property with the intent to deprive the owner, which includes theft of services when someone wrongfully obtains labor or equipment with the intent to gain a substantial benefit.

Reasoning: Under General Statutes, 53a-119, a person commits larceny by wrongfully taking or withholding property with the intent to deprive the owner. This definition encompasses theft of services, which occurs when someone wrongfully obtains labor or equipment from another, knowing they lack entitlement to it, with the intent to gain a substantial benefit.

Standard of Review for Sufficiency of Evidence

Application: The appellate court must assess the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict and determine if the cumulative evidence supports guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reasoning: The appellate review of evidence requires assessing it in a light favorable to the verdict and determining if the cumulative evidence supports guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.