People v. Trezza

• Decision Date: 24 February 1891
• Citation: 125 N.Y. 740,26 N.E. 933
• Parties: PEOPLE v. TREZZA.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

125 N.Y. 740

26 N.E. 933

PEOPLE

v.TREZZA.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Feb. 24, 1891.

Appeal from court of sessions, Kings county.

A. H. Dailey, for appellant.

John F. Clarke, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the People.

O'BRIEN, J.

The defendant was convicted in the Kings county court of sessions of the murder of Alexander Salvano at the town of Flatbush, one of the suburbs of Brooklyn, on the 6th day of April, 1890. There are no exceptions in the record that raise any question of law upon which the defendant is entitled to a new trial, and as we are not authorized by the provisions of chapter 493 of the Laws of 1887 to interfere with the finding of the jury, when supported by sufficient evidence, unless it appears from the whole record that injustice has been done, it is unnecessary to give more than a brief summary of the facts upon which the judgment rests. People v. Cignarale, 110 N. Y. 23, 17 N. E. Rep. 135; People v. Kelly, 113 N. Y. 647, 21 N. E. Rep. 122. On the day that the homicide was committed, which was Easter Sunday, the deceased was at his house in Flatbush with his family, consisting of his wife, his sister, a married daughter, and her husband. In the afternoon a friend and acquaintance of the deceased named Felicia Delucca called, and was present when the deceased was killed. About 5 or 6 o'clock in the evening the defendant loudly knocked at the door of the house, and entered. The day was being observed by the deceased and his family, and the friend who called, in a festal manner, and the defendant shortly after entering the house was invited by Salvano to partake of some of the estables on the table. The defendant declined, saying that he was not hungry, but wanted something to drink, and suggested to deceased to send for some beer. Some one of the family was about to go for the beer, when the deceased again requested the defendant to eat something. The defendant said, in substance, that he did not come to eat or to drink, but to ‘kill you or somebody else,’ and he said, with an oath, ‘I won't go out of here unless I do somebody harm.’ Then, according to the testimony of the prosecution, he struck the table, and took a piece of meat on the fork, saying, ‘The way I eat this beef I eat somebody's blood.’ The deceased asked him if he ‘was fooling,’ and the defendant repeated with an oath, ‘I mean to do it.’ The deceased told him: ‘You had better go away about your business, Nick, because this is Easter Sunday evening; there is no need to make trouble.’ The defendant again said, ‘I have come over here to do some people harm.’ After ordering the defendant out of the house, and some more words, the deceased took hold of him to put him out, and the defendant walked out of the door, which had been opened. While the defendant was going out he was seen to draw a five-barreled revolver from his pocket, and adjust it under his coat-sleeve. When outside the door the defendant turned around facing the deceased, who stood in or just outside the door, and about six feet away, and drew the revolver from his sleeve, and fired two shots at the deceased, and another shot at his son-in-law. At the time of firing the pistol the defendant said, ‘I will kill you first, then I will kill everybody in the house.’ A bullet from one of the shots aimed at the deceased passed through the heart, causing almost instant death. The third shot, which was aimed at Frank Murri, the son-in-law, passed through his clothing without injuring him. After firing these three shots, the defendant turned and fled, with the revolver in his hand. He was pursued by Murri, the son-in-law, and Delucca, and after running about a hundred feet he turned, and fired another shot at them, without effect. He continued to run until he reached the Boulevard, when he turned and ran back in the direction of the house where the deceased lay. When within about 100 feet of the house he tripped and fell, and was then caught by Delucca, and, after some resistance, disarmed. These facts are testified to by the sister of deceased, the son-in-law, and Delucca, who were all present, and witnessed the interview which resulted in the death of Salvano. The wife and daughter of the deceased were also in the house when the defendant came there, but, it seems, had stepped out before the threats and the shooting, to accompany some one to the cars, and, hearing the report of shots when about half a block away, returned, and found him dead.

The principal witnesses on both sides were Italians, unable to speak the English language, and their testimony had to be taken through an interpreter. From an examination of the...