State v. Wiener
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. JEFFREY R. WIENER (SC 16396) Norcott, Katz, Palmer, Vertefeuille and Zarella, Js. Argued April 26 officially released May 22, 2001 Counsel Alice M. Sexton, for the appellant (defendant). Rita M. Shair, senior assistant state s attorney, with whom were John A. Connelly, state s attorney, and, on the brief, John Davenport, assistant state s attorney, for the appellee (state). Opinion PER CURIAM. The defendant, Jeffrey Wiener, appeals, following our grant of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court s judgment of conviction of the crime of larceny in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-123 (a) (2).1 State v. Wiener, 58 Conn. App. 203, 753 A.2d 376 (2000). We granted the defendant s petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issues: (1) Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court s granting of the complainant s motion to quash did not violate the defendant s sixth amendment rights to compulsory process and to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him? ; and (2) If the answer to question one is yes, did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the complainant s motion to quash, ruling that the subpoenaed financial records were collateral? 2 State v. Wiener, 254 Conn. 924, 761 A.2d 757 (2000). After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted. The appeal is dismissed. 1 General Statutes § 53a-123 (a) provides in relevant part: (a) A person is guilty of larceny in the second degree when he commits larceny, as defined in section 53a-119, and . . . (2) the value of the property or service exceeds five thousand dollars . . . . 2 At trial, the defendant had served his part-time employer, the complainant, James DeRienzo, Jr., with a subpoena seeking the production of certain income tax returns and various financial and accounting records spanning the years 1990 through 1996. The trial court granted DeRienzo s motion to quash and limited the scope of the subpoena to the years 1994 and 1995, ruling that the requested records for the previous years would raise collateral issues.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
