People v. Sanducci

• Decision Date: 18 May 1909
• Citation: 195 N.Y. 361,88 N.E. 385
• Parties: PEOPLE v. SANDUCCI.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

195 N.Y. 361

88 N.E. 385

PEOPLE

v.SANDUCCI.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 18, 1909.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Trial Term, Allegany County.

Guiseppe Sanducci was convicted of murder in the first degree, and appeals. Affirmed.Eugene M. Bartlett, for appellant.

Joseph F. Rice, for the People.

VANN, J.

On the 2d of April, 1908, the defendant was convicted of the crime of murder in the first degree upon an indictment alleging that on the 21st of December, 1907, he inflicted a mortal wound upon the body of one Joseph Dardano with the deliberate and premeditated design to effect his death.

The defendant is an Italian, and at the time of the homicide was 23 years of age. He came to America in 1905, and went to Philadelphia, where he remained until about the 1st of August, 1907, when he moved to this state and located at the village of Belfast in the county of Allegany. About the 1st of October following he began to work for one Michael Decilio, who carried on a bakery in that place, and continued in this employment until the morning of December 21, 1907, when, as he admitted on the trial, he shot and killed Joseph Dardano.

Dardano and one Albert Mantica were detectives employed by the state excise department to investigate violations of the excise law. Both were Italians residing in Albany, and, pursuant to instructions from the department, visited Belfast on the 15th of November, 1907, and went to Decilio's bakery, where they saw the defendant at work baking bread, but had no conversation with him. During the day, in the presence of the defendant, they were served with three bottles of beer by a daughter of Decilio in his place of business. They returned to Albany and reported the facts to the department, when they were again sent to Belfast, and on the 20th of December, at their instance, Decilio was arrested for a violation of the excise law and arraigned before a magistrate. Evidence was given tending to show that the defendant was present at the arraignment, although he denied it, and several witnesses, including Mantica, testified that they did not see him on that occasion. Dardano and Mantica remained at Belfast over the night of December 20th, and the next morning went to the station of the Pennsylvania railroad in that village to take the train for Rochester. On their way they passed by Decilio's bakery, which was between 500 and 600 feet from the depot and in plain sight therefrom.

Upon the trial Mantica testified that looking out of the window of the waiting room he saw the defendant and Johnny, a son of Decilio, about 15 years of age, come over from the bakery and enter the depot. In a short time he noticed that the boy had his eyes on Dardano and himself and was pointing toward them. Thereupon he went over where the lad was standing by the defendant and asked the latter whether he wanted to talk to either Dardano or himself. The defendant made no reply, but shrugged his shoulders, walked away, and shortly afterward went out of the room. As the train approached, Mantica and Dardano went out on the platform to get on board, when, according to the version of Mantica, he was shot from behind, and, turning quickly, saw the defendant about 15 feet away firing toward Dardano and himself. He did not see, but he heard the first shot, which hit him in the back of the head, making a slight flesh wound. The second and third shots hit Dardano, and the fourth penetrated a mail bag in the hands of a messenger who was about to put it on the train. He was standing near Dardano, and felt the impact of the bullet as it struck the pouch. The second shot wounded Dardano slightly in the scalp, but the third hit him in the back, and, severing the spinal cord, caused his death in a few days. The defendant then ran off with the revolver in his hand, and warned the people whom he met to get out of his way, pointing it at one who told him to stop. Several eyewitnesses testified that all the shots were fired by the defendant as he was approaching Dardano from behind, and the evidence to this effect was strong and convincing. One witness testified that early in the morning on the day of the homicide he saw the defendant cleaning his revolver in the bakery, but the latter denied it.

On the other hand, the defendant, when sworn as a witness in his own behalf, testified that he saw the detectives on the 15th, but paid no attention to them, and did not see them served with beer; that he did not know of Decilio's arrest, and was not present when he was arraigned; that he did not clean his gun on the morning in question, and went to the station simply to get some freight for his employer, as he had many times during the course of his employment. He tried to get it the day before, but failed because it had not yet arrived. After seeing the freight he went to the office for it, but the agent said he was too busy to attend to the matter until after the train left. Thereupon the defendant went with Johnny and stood by the stove in the waiting room, and in a short time Dardano and Mantica walked up in front of him, and both asked what he was doing. He replied, ‘I go about my business,’ and they then said, ‘Not this morning, you _____’ calling him an insulting name, and walked out. He went to the door, and they called him the same name five or six times as he stood there. He said nothing, and finally they started toward him, unbuttoned their coats, throwing them back, and saying they would throw him out and run him down with the engine. He was afraid of them and shot them, but did not know what he was doing. He was mad and fired four shots. When he fired the first shot they were facing him, and when he fired the second they were coming toward him, but they then turned. The shots were fired in quick succession. These men had never harmed him, and up to the time he went to the freight house he did not know who they were. He had had no trouble with them, and had no grudge against them, and did not know that they were to be at the station when he went there. He did

The essential features of the defendant's

The essential features of the defendant's testimony were wholly without corroboration. The boy, Johnny, was a witness, but he did not see the shooting. His testimony as to what occurred in the waiting room tended to corroborate the version of Mantica in that regard. The testimony of the defendant that Dardano and Mantica were approaching him in a threatening attitude when he fired the first and second shots was contradicted by that of every other witness who saw the tragedy.

According to the uncontradicted testimony of several witnesses, the defendant had carried a revolver for some time before the homicide, and was in the habit of going to the railroad station to get freight to use in his employer's business at the bakery. It also appeared that freight was due and had actually arrived, although the freight agent thought it had been delivered the day before, but he could not say that it had all been delivered. He was of the opinion that some was delivered to Decilio after the homicide. Two witnesses testified that the reputation of the defendant was good. Several eyewitnesses swore that they did not see either Dardano or Mantica unbutton his coat, throw it back, and start toward the defendant, and one of them testified that he observed the body of Dardano after he fell, and that the top button on his coat was buttoned, but the rest were unbuttoned. Mantica denied that either he or Dardano called the defendant names, or unbuttoned their coats and rushed toward him. All the witnesses agreed that the firing was as rapid as possible, but it did not appear whether the revolver was of the self-cocking variety or not.

Even in a capital case, the decision by the jury of all questions of fact is subject to review by us only to the extent of determining whether the evidence fairly and reasonably supports their conclusion upon each of those questions. The credibility of witnesses is necessarily for the 12 jurors who looked into their faces and heard them testify, rather than for the seven judges who simply read the printed record of what they said.

In this case there was no question as to the killing of Dardano by the defendant, for he swore to it himself. The controlling question whether the killing was done with the deliberate and premeditated design to effect death was for the jury to decide. They could have accepted the statement of the defendant, but obviously they did not believe it. They could have found, and the presumption is they did find, that the defendant followed Dardano up with intent to take his life, which involves premeditation; and that after forming the intent he shot at him four times from behind his back, which involves deliberation. The rapidity of the firing is important only as it measures the time the defendant had to change his mind before he fired the third shot, which proved fatal. Each shot was a separate act in execution of the design to kill, and, as there was time to act twice, there was time to think or to deliberate before the fatal shot was fired. Repeated shots, blows, or acts of violence point toward deliberate...