People v. Seppi
| Citation | 116 N.E. 793,221 N.Y. 62 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. SEPPI. |
| Decision Date | 25 May 1917 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Trial Term, Kings County.
Michael Seppi was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.Robert H. Elder, of New York City, for appellatn.
Harry E. Lewis, Dist. Atty., of Brooklyn (Ralph E. Hemstreet, of Brooklyn, of counsel), for the People.
On the afternoon of September 11, 1916, while Ernest Parisi was walking near the corner of Berriman street and Belmont avenue in the borough of Brooklyn, New York City, he was shot by a person who came up behind him. He died from the result of the wound. The man who fired the shot immediately thereafter turned and ran northerly along the east side of Berriman street to the corner of Pitkin avenue; thence westerly and diagonally through Pitkin avenue to Shepherd street; thence north on Shepherd street to Glenmore avenue; thence east on Glenmore avenue to Essex street; thence north on Essex street, beyond which his flight has not been traced.
Two months after the homicide, the defendant was arrested in the borough of Brooklyn charged with the crime. The man who shot Parisi committed the crime of murder in the first degree. Penal Law, § 1044. The question of vital importance at the trial was whether the defendant is the man who committed the crime. When he was arrested, the officer making the arrest said to him: He replied: The officer asked him, ‘Where have you been all this time?’ and he replied, ‘Right around.’ He was also questioned in his native language by an Italian officer. He was asked: ‘Why don't you tell us as to why and how you shot this man at East New York?’ He replied: The officer asked, ‘Who is your lawyer?’ and he replied, ‘I don't know yet.’ It does not appear that he at any time thereafter talked about the homicide.
On the day of the homicide and a little more than an hour before it occurred, the deceased and the defendant met in a shoe shop on Glenmore avenue, which is next door to a barber shop. The defendant spoke about the barber, who is his cousin, and said that he is always sleepy, and they laughed. The shoemaker said that the barber ‘wanted to become a deputy.’ Parisi said, ‘He is an imbecile.’ The defendant inquired, ‘Why is he an imbecile?’ and Parisi repeated, ‘He is an imbecile,’ and all laughed again. The shoemaker was polishing the defendant's shoes, and as Parisi was about to go out of the shop the defendant said, ‘Wait, I want to speak to you,’ and shortly thereafter they went out together. Parisi returned to the shop a little later and inquired, ‘Where is the barber's cousin?’ The shoemaker replied that he did not know, and Parisi went away. The conversation at the shoemaker's was in a low tone of voice, and it does not appear that there was any anger on the part of either person taking part therein. Nothing was shown at the trial tending to prove any threat or enmity by defendant against Parisi or any motive real or imaginary on his part to kill Parisi.
Nearly one-quarter of the block at the corner of Berriman street and Belmont avenue where the homicide occurred was at the time vacant. In such vacant lot two boys were playing, and they heard a shot and looking around saw Parisi turn to face the man who fired the shot. The assailant was. then very close to Parisi, and he shot the second time, immediately upon which Parisi fell to the walk, whereupon the assailant turned and ran north on Berriman street as hereinbefore stated. The two boys ran out of the lot; one Oelrich, 13 years old, remained near Parisi. The other boy, Aschentrup, 14 years old, ran after the slayer. When the slayer was about halfway along the first block, another boy, Koehler, hearing shots, ran out of a house and joined in running after the fleeing man. A third boy on roller skates, Rollo, came around the corner of Belmont avenue at or about the time the shots were fired, and he joined the other two in the chase. Near the corner of Shepherd street and Pitkin avenue was a boy, Stern, 14 years old, on a bicycle, and he followed with the other three. The boys followed the slayer until at the middle of the block on Glenmore avenue, between Shepherd and Essex streets. When the slayer reached that point he threw his pistol, which he had been carrying, into the grass by a junk shop. The boys stopped to pick up and examine the pistol, and the slayer made his escape.
Aschentrup, one of the boys that was in the lot at the time of the homicide, followed the slayer until he threw away his pistol. He testified that he did not see the man's face, but that he did get a good look at his back; that the man had on a light gray suit and wore a black derby hat and was thin and short. He was unable to identify the defendant as the man who shot Parisi.
Koehler, the boy who ran out of his house only a few feet behind the fleeing man, testified that he had a good look at the man while he was running, but that he did not see his face; that he had on a gray suit and a derby hat. He was unable to identify the defendant as the fleeing man.
Rollo, the boy on the roller skates, testified that the man was round shouldered and has a short neck; that he had on a light suit, but that he did not see his face. He was unable to identify the defendant as the man whom he followed.
Oelrich, who was about 13 years of age and remained with the man who was shot, testified that he had a good look at the man's back but did not see his face. He further testified that the man had a short neck and broad shoulders, and that the defendant is the man who shot Parisi.
Stern, the boy on the bicycle, is the principal reliance of the prosecution. He testified that the man was short, broad shouldered, low necked, and had a small head. His description of the man, so far as his dress is concerned, is materially different from the others. While the others testified that the man had on a light suit and a derby hat, Stern testified that he had on a jacket, the color of which he does not remember, and that he wore a soft hat. He further testified that the defendant is the man that he followed and who threw away the revolver. He had never seen the man before and did not see the defendant until about three months after the homicide.
The defendant's wife testified that she remembers Monday, the 11th of September, by reason of certain occurrences which she detailed-that the defendant went to East New York on that day with his little boy and returned to his home with the boy at half past 4. The homicide occurred about one-quarter to 5.
Another witness testified that she remembers Monday, the 11th of September, by reason of certain occurrences which she detailed; that she called on the defendant's wife that afternoon; and that while she was making the call and between a quarter and half past 4 the defendant came home with his little boy.
Who killed Parisi? Was the defendant the man who fired the shots and then ran, followed by the boys...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Wade, 334
... ... We said, quoting a concurring opinion in Spano v. People of State of New York, 360 U.S. 315, 326, 79 S.Ct. 1202, 1209, 3 L.Ed.2d 1265, that '(a)nything less * * * might deny a defendant 'effective ... Adell, 75 Ill.App.2d 385, 221 N.E.2d 72 (1966); State v. Hill, 193 Kan. 512, 394 P.2d 106 (1964); People v. Seppi, 221 N.Y. 62, 116 N.E. 793 (1917); State v. Duggan, 215 Or. 151, 162, 333 P.2d 907, 912 (1958). 20. See People v. Crenshaw, 15 Ill.2d 458, 460, 155 ... ...
-
United States v. Wade
...463 (1959); People v. Adell, 75 Ill.App.2d 385, 221 N.E.2d 72 (1966); State v. Hill, 193 Kan. 512, 394 P.2d 106 (1964); People v. Seppi, 221 N.Y. 62, 116 N.E. 793 (1917); State v. Duggan, 215 Or. 151, 162, 333 P.2d 907, 912 (1958). 20 See People v. Crenshaw, 15 Ill.2d 458, 460, 155 N.E.2d 5......
-
The State v. Baldwin
... ... in a criminal trial by proof of a former identification where ... no attempt has been made to impeach such witness in any way ... People v. Jung Hing, 212 N.Y. 393; State v ... Houghton, 43 Ore. 125, 71 P. 982; State v ... Evans, 98 Ore. 214, 192 P. 1062; Warren v ... , 103 Ark. 165, 146 S.W. 477; People v ... Lukoszus, 242 Ill. 101, 89 N.E. 749; People v ... Seppi, 221 N.Y. 62; Cummings v. State, 87 Tex ... Cr. 154, 219 S.W. 1104; Gillotti v. State, 125 Wis ... 634, 116 N.W. 252; State v. Hamilton ... ...
-
People v. Malphurs
... ... It was thus within the jury's province to assess the weight to be accorded her testimony (see People v. Ganci, 27 N.Y.2d 418, 318 N.Y.S.2d 484, 267 N.E.2d 263, cert. denied, 402 U.S. 924, 91 S.Ct. 1398, 28 L.Ed.2d 663; People v. Seppi, 221 N.Y. 62, 68, 116 N.E. 793; People v. Chamberlain, supra, 96 A.D.2d at 960, 466 N.Y.S.2d 860) ... We also reject defendant's contention that it was error for the trial court to refuse to conduct a Sandoval hearing with respect to the prior vicious and immoral acts intended to ... ...