People v. Serimarco

• Decision Date: 30 May 1911
• Parties: PEOPLE v. SERIMARCO.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

202 N.Y. 225

95 N.E. 553

PEOPLE

v.SERIMARCO.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 30, 1911.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Trial Term, Westchester County.

Guiseppi Serimarco was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.

George C. Andrews, for appellant.

Lee Parsons Davis, Dist. Atty., for the People.

WERNER, J.

On the 6th day of January, 1910, in the town of Mamaroneck, in the county of Westchester, one Savario Feddo, otherwise known as Fido, met his death by the hand of the defendant, Guiseppi Serimarco. The immediate cause of death was a stab wound inflicted by the defendant upon the body of Fido at a point about one inch above the left groin, extending into the posterior abdominal wall, and severing the external iliac artery . The defendant was thereafter indicted for the crime of murder in the first decree, and later he was brought to trial and convicted. The evidence clearly established the death of Fido and the defendant's responsibility for it. These facts have never been at issue, and the only questions in the case are (1) whether the evidence as to the premeditation and deliberation charged against the defendant was of sufficient weight and cogency to warrant the submission to the jury of the charge of murder in the first decree, and (2) whether there was any error in the charge of the learned trial court to the jury.

The evidence which bears directly upon the question whether the defendant committed the crime of murder in the first degree is comprehended in a very few words, and its significance can only be appreciated after a recital of all the circumstances which cluster around the homicide. As is indicated by the names of the deceased and the defendant, they were both Italians. They were acquaintances, if not friends. On the afternoon of the homicide the defendant and one Alloy met in a saloon at Manaroneck. There they played cards for about three hours, and during that time each drank about five glasses of beer. At about 5 o'clock in the afternoon they left the saloon and proceeded to the hourse of one Tomasso Lorocco, where they remained for supper, during the course of which three pints of beer were consumed by the nine or ten persons who partook of the meal. Meanwhile a young son of Lorocco was sent downstairs to ask if Fido would allow his rooms to be used for dancing, and if he would play for the dancers. The boy returned, saying that Fido did not wish to play, as he was tired from the hard work of the day, and must start again early on the morrow. Thereupon the defendant went down to importune the deceased, and soon returned with a message that the latter had consented to play. The party went downstairs and dancing began. Fido played upon the violin. Beer was sent for, and the dancers paused occasionally to partake. The defendant danced so vigorously as to become considerably heated, and he stopped for a drink. He asked Alloy if there was more beer, whereupon Alloy poured out what was left in the pitcher, less than half a glass, and handed it to the defendant, who took it and threw glass and contents at Alloy, who escaped by dodging. Alloy approached the defendant with some words of friendly remonstrance, when the latter struck him a blow with the fist. At this juncture the deceased interfered as a peacemaker, with the traditional result. Having suggested to the defendant that he did not want any trouble or quarreling over so slight a matter, Fido put his hands upon the defendant and pushed him to a seat in a chair which stood near the wall.

[1] This is the point at which the story of what happened bears directly upon the question of premeditation and deliberation. The defendant, being seated in the chair, and having ‘sat a little while,’ according to the statement of Fiorto, the only witness called by him, addressed the deceased and said, ‘I would like to get my handkerchief from the overcoat,’ referring to an overcoat which hung on a book attached to the wall behind the chair. The defendant stood up, reached for the coat pocket, and drew therefrom a large knife with an open, rigid blade, which he instantly plunged into the abdomen...