People v. Barberi

• Decision Date: 21 April 1896
• Citation: 149 N.Y. 256,43 N.E. 635
• Parties: PEOPLE v. BARBERI.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

149 N.Y. 256

43 N.E. 635

PEOPLE

v.BARBERI.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 21, 1896.

Appeal from court of general sessions, New York county.

Marie Barberi was convicted of murder in the first degree, and appeals. Reversed.

Frederick B. House, for appellant.

John D. Lindsay, for the People.

O'BRIEN, J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of murder in the first degree, in causing the death of one Domenico Cataldo on the morning of the 26th of April, 1895. The place where the homicide was committed was in an Italian saloon in the city of New York, and the manner in which the offense was perpetrated was by cutting the throat of the deceased with a razor, which the defendant at some time procured from his trunk, and brought with her to the saloon. The act was committed publicly, in the presence of several persons, at about 9 o'clock in the morning, and there is no dispute whatever in regard to the fact that the defendant then and there inflicted the wound in the manner stated, which almost immediately produced the death of the deceased. The proof on the part of the people was confined to the act of the defendant producing the death, and her declarations at the time or immediately thereafter. The defendant was sworn as a witness in her own behalf, and it is from her statement alone that we are enabled to obtain any clear or connected view of the circumstances and events which preceded and produced the tragedy.

The defendant and the deceased were natives of Italy, having resided in New York but a few years, and at the time of the commission of the homicide the former was about 22 and the latter about 27 years of age. The deceased had a bootblacking stand at the corner of Elm and Canal streets, where he personally attended to that business. The defendant was the daughter of a tailor, and she was herself employed in an establishment at that business, thus contributing to her support and that of the family. Her parents resided in Elizabeth street, and, in going to and from her place of employment, she passed the stand where the deceased carried on his business and was generally to be found. It appears that he had frequently noticed the girl, and finally, without any formal introduction, spoke to her, and in that way sought her acquaintance. This was about a year and a half before his death. At a very early stage of the acquaintance thus formed, he avowed his intention to call upon her parents, and seek her hand in marriage,-a proposition which she did not discourage, if, indeed, it did not receive her approval and consent. The parties met upon these terms from time to time during some months following, the deceased frequently walking with the defendant from his place of business to the entrance of the shop where she was employed. During this time the defendant called his attention to the fact that he had not kept his promise to call upon her parents, and ask her in marriage; and, upon receiving evasive or unsatisfactory answers, the girl, in order to avoid passing his place of business or meeting him, changed her route to and from her home, still being employed in the same tailoring establishment. The deceased, some time after this change, was found waiting for her at the door of the shop where she was employed, and walked with her towards her home. In this interview the deceased urged the defendant to resume the old route, and pass by his stand as formerly, so as to enable him to see her, still avowing his intention to call upon her parents, and obtain their approval of the contemplated marriage; and, upon his promise to do so, she consented, and complied with his request. During the interviews which followed for some months afterwards, the deceased frequently urged the defendant to marry him, and at last suggested such marriage without the consent of her parents, at which she became indignant, and left her employment in the shop, in order, as she says, to get rid of him. Some time afterwards, she obtained employment in another shop, in another part of the city. It appears that the deceased learned in some way where she was, and one day, when leaving her work for the day, about noon, she found the deceased at the door, waiting for her, and, at his invitation, she accompanied him for a walk. He took her to a saloon on Chrystie street, where they had some soda, after which they parted. The intimacy between the parties formed on the street, as described, and interrupted for a short time by the defendant, in changing her place of employment, in order to terminate it, was thus resumed and continued for some months, till the 28th of March, 1895, when an event occurred which precipitated, or, rather, was the principal cause of, the tragedy. On that day, for some reason not important to ascertain, the defendant's duties in the shop terminated about noon. The deceased met her there, and invited her to take a walk with him, and she accepted the invitation. It may be fairly inferred that by this time the defendant had overcome her objections to marrying the deceased without the express approval of her parents, and, during their walk about the city, he called her attention to various places where there were furnished rooms advertised, pointing out one or more apartments that he thought would be suitable for them. There is nothing in the record to show that the defendant understood these suggestions as implying anything save her approaching marriage, and there are many circumstances to indicate that such was her understanding, as well as the idea that the deceased wished to convey to her. It appears that he so arranged the walk as to arrive in a short time at the same saloon in Chrystie street already mentioned, where he called for soda for the defendant, and some other drink for himself, each seated at separate tables, at his suggestion. The soda was served to the defendant by the person at the bar, and some other liquid to the deceased, but just what it was does not appear. After the defendant had drunk a portion of the glass of soda, the deceased came to her table, and requested her to taste the liquid in his glass. She complied, but found the taste disagreeable, and refused to drink it; but the deceased persuaded her to mix it with the soda, as it would improve it, and he then poured a portion of the substance in his glass into the soda, and she drank about half a glass of the mixture. According to the statement of the defendant, the inference is warranted that this was some drug that had a powerful effect upon her both physically and mentally. The defendant was then taken by him to a house near the saloon, and at his invitation, but apparently after some hesitation, she accompanied him upstairs, where a woman appeared, who directed them to a room, into which they entered, and he locked the door. They remained in the room about three hours, and the deceased had intercourse with the defendant, by means of either force or fraud, according to her statement. He then suggested that they leave the place, and she refused to go until they were married; but he finally succeeded in persuading her to wait for the ceremony until he could prepare suitable apartments to live in. The deceased had money in the bank, and the defendant knew it, and she had no reason to doubt his ability to perform the promise. From this room the parties went to the defendant's home, the deceased parting with the defendant at the house, and refusing to go in and see her parents. She immediately went to bed, without disclosing to them what had happened, though her condition did not entirely escape the notice of her mother.

The following morning she concluded to go to the shop, and on the way met the deceased, who told her he was then providing the apartments, and would then marry her. The defendant called his attention to the many promises of that kind that he had made, and reminded him that there was now nothing else to do. He then said to her to keep quiet for three days longer, and then the marriage would take place. On April 1, 1895, three or four days after the events described, she met the deceased again, who said to her that the apartments were ready, to go with him, and he would marry her. On this assurance she went with him to apartments on East Thirteenth street, which, to her surprise, she found entirely empty and unfurnished. The deceased then told her to stay in the room while he went for the furniture, and then they would go to the city hall immediately, and be married. To this suggestion the defendant replied, ‘No furniture, first the marriage, and then everything else;’ and on her expressing a desire to leave, as she says, he took her by the shoulders, threw her on the floor, and forced her to have intercourse with him. Leaving the defendant with the housekeeper, the deceased went away, and in a short time returned with another man, bringing a couple of trunks and a bag or mattress, and subsequently an old bureau. They lived and cohabited in this room till the day of the homicide, nearly a month, the defendant every day begging him to marry her, and he promising to do so ‘the next day,’ though, after a couple of weeks, he began to interpose obstacles, objections, and sometimes refusals. His conduct in that respect produced frequent quarrels between them, the particulars of which are not disclosed. When the defendant awoke on the morning of the homicide, she asked him if he proposed to marry her that day, to which he replied, ‘No; I absolutely cannot marry you.’ She then said to him that, if he did not, she would have him arrested; and, on his starting to leave the room, she locked the door, and took the key, and placed herself at the window, apparently looking out for a policeman; but after some time the deceased prevailed upon her to allow him to leave the room, she telling him that she would follow him, and have him arrested by the first policeman she met. From this room it appears that he went directly to the...