People v. Laudiero

Citation192 N.Y. 304,85 N.E. 132
PartiesPEOPLE v. LAUDIERO.
Decision Date12 June 1908
CourtNew York Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Court of General Sessions, New York County.

Angelo Laudiero was convicted of murder in the first degree and he appeals from the judgment and orders denying his motions for an arrest of judgment and for a new trial. Affirmed.Charles Le Barbier, for appellant.

Wm. Travers Jerome, Dist. Atty. (Robert C. Taylor, of counsel), for respondent.

HAIGHT, J.

The defendant, Angelo Laudiero, has been convicted of the crime of murder in the first degree. The evidence on the part of the people tended to show that on the 14th day of December, 1906, about a quarter before 5 o'clock in the afternoon Michael D'Ambro was standing on Hester street in the city of New York in front of the bank of L. Scinto, near the grocery store adjoining of Domenico Pagano, talking with Frederick Balsamo, Antonio Mangrello, and the keeper of the grocery store. While so engaged the defendant crossed the street in front of a span of horses standing opposite, approached D'Ambro from behind, and either grabbed him by the throat or collar, or struck him with his right hand, and at the same instant shot him with a revolver which he held in his left hand, the bullet entering the temple a short distance in front of and above the ear, from which would D'Ambro shortly thereafter died. It also appeared that as D'Ambro fell to the walk upon receiving the bullet the defendant fired at him again, and then, after a short interval, turned his revolver toward Mangrello, firing at him several times, and that Mangrello pulled his revolver from his pocket and returned the fire of the defendant, wounding him in the leg. The eyewitnesses substantially agree with reference to the shooting of D'Ambro by the defendant. The four persons mentioned were standing together talking, and consequently occupied different positions upon the sidewalk, and naturally some of the witnesses saw the defendant approach D'Ambro while the others did not see him until the first shot was fired. They all agree that the defendant held his revolver in his left hand at the time of firing; that at first there were two shots fired, then after a short interval there were five or six more shots fired. There was evidence to the effect that about a year before the defendant had had a quarrel with Mangrello, who had struck him, and that the decedent, D'Ambro, had interfered and prevented the defendant from getting revenge at that time, and that about a month before the homicide in question the latter had, in conversation with one Di Rosa, referred to the quarrel, and said that the time had not yet passed for him to vindicate himself. The defendant was sworn in his own behalf, and testified in substance that he was passing along Hester street at the time alluded to and as he approached the grocery store Mangrello turned around and said, ‘Here comes that snot;’ that the defendant then answered, ‘Why am I a snot?’ and at that Mangrello pulled a revolver, shot and wounded him in the leg; that then the defendant pulled his revolver and fired it once; that he did not see D'Ambro and did not shoot him. The evidence was of such a character that it became the duty of the court to submit the question of the defendant's guilt to the jury, and in our judgment it fully sustains the verdict rendered.

After the court had concluded its charge the defendant's counsel asked that the jury be further instructed to the effect that ‘if there is in the mind of the jury a reasonable doubt as to the truth or untruth of any testimony on the part of the people such doubt must be resolved in favor of the defendant by the rejection of such testimony.’ The court declined to charge in the language of the request, but stated: ‘If you believe that any witness has willfully testified falsely to any material fact you are authorized, but not bound, to disregard the entire testimony of the witness. Of course, where you disregard the testimony of any particular witness, it must necessarily follow that it results to the benefit of the accused.’ The court had already fully and correctly instructed the jury with reference to their duty in case they had a reasonable doubt as to any of the essential facts necessary to establish the guilt of the defendant and in case they had a reasonable doubt with reference to any such facts being established by the testimony, the defendant was to be given the benefit of such doubt. The court also, as we have seen, in answer to the request, further charged the jury that in case any witness had willfully testified falsely to any material fact they might disregard his entire testimony. It is thus apparent to our minds that the jurors were fully instructed upon the subject, and that the defendant has no cause for complaint. The request was too broad to be entitled to be charged in the specific language of the defendant's counsel. It was to the effect that, if there was a reasonable doubt as to the truth or untruth of any testimony the doubt must be resolved in favor of the defendant by the rejecting such testimony. A witness may be honestly mistaken with reference to some minor detail of a transaction which does not affect the essential facts by which the various elements constituting a crime are established. It does not, therefore, follow that the entire testimony of a witness should be rejected, by reason of an honest mistake with reference to some minor detail, but that the testimony only, with reference to which the witness was mistaken, should be rejected. S...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Michelson v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 20, 1948
    ...her information more highly than her judgment, and on appeal from conviction the cross-examination was held proper. People v. Laudiero, 192 N.Y. 304, 309, 85 N.E. 132. See also People v. Elliott, 163 N.Y. 11, 57 N.E. 17 See, e.g., Mannix v. United States, 4 Cir., 140 F.2d 250. It has been h......
  • Kilgore v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • September 25, 1972
    ...her information more highly than her judgment, and on appeal from conviction the cross-examination was held proper. People v. Laudiero, 192 N.Y. 304, 309, 85 N.E. 132. See also People v. Elliott, 163 N.Y. 11, 57 N.E. test the sufficiency of his knowledge by asking what stories were circulat......
  • Spalitto v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • March 14, 1930
    ...650; Basye v. State, 45 Neb. 261, 63 N. W. 811; State v. Sella, 41 Nev. 113, 168 P. 278; State v. Knapp, 45 N. H. 148; People v. Laudiero, 192 N. Y. 304; 85 N. E. 132; Zeltner v. State, 13 Ohio Cir. Ct. (N. S.) 417; Russell v. State, 17 Okl. Cr. 164, 194 P. 242; State v. Harvey, 117 Or. 466......
  • State v. Sella
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • November 2, 1917
    ... ... Q. (by the prosecuting attorney) ... Do you know anything against his reputation? A. No, I do not ... Q. Are you acquainted with what the people of the community ... say of him? A. Generally so." ...          On ... cross-examination, counsel for the defendant propounded the ... Kimes, 152 Iowa, 240, 132 N.W. 180; ... State v. Killion, 95 Kan. 371, 148 P. 643; State ... v. Knapp, 45 N.H. 148; People v. Laudiero, 192 ... N.Y. 304, 85 N.E. 132; State v. Merriman, 34 S.C ... 16, 12 S.E. 619 ...          We are ... referred by respondent to the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT