Com. v. Negri

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Writing for the CourtBefore BELL; EAGEN
Citation198 A.2d 595,414 Pa. 21
Decision Date17 March 1964
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH v. Charles NEGRI, Appellant.

Page 595

198 A.2d 595
414 Pa. 21
COMMONWEALTH

v.
Charles NEGRI, Appellant.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
March 17, 1964.

[414 Pa. 23]

Page 597

Leonard L. Ettinger, Manfred Landau, Ettinger, Gallagher & Silverman, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Thomas M. Reed, Asst. Dist. Atty., Edmund Pawelec, Asst. Dist. Atty., Richard A. Sprague, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Homicide Division, Arlen Specter, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Litigation Division, F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Jr., First. Asst. Dist. Atty., James C. Crumlish, Jr., Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for appellee

Before BELL, C. J., and MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.

EAGEN, Justice.

Charles Negri, the appellant, after trial was found guilty by a jury of murder in the first degree. The penalty was fixed at life imprisonment. Following the denial of post trial motions and imposition of sentence, an appeal to this Court was filed.

The facts established by the evidence may be fairly briefed as follows:

On November 11, 1961, Negri and one James Lenahan escaped from Leesburg Prison Farm in New Jersey,[414 Pa. 24] where they were under penal confinement. They traveled to the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, rented an apartment under fictitious names and went into hiding. Shortly thereafter, they devised a plan to rob a bank in Westville, New Jersey. To help carry out the plan, the services of others were obtained, namely Ethel Nielsen, Vito Belfiore and Romeo Mercantini. The details were discussed and rehearsed.

On December 4, 1961, by prearrangement, Negri, Lenahan, Belfiore, Nielsen and Mercantini met on a parking lot behind a diner located near the bank. According to plan, Nielsen and Mercantini remained on the lot in two separate automobiles which they were to drive in the get away. Negri and Lenahan, well armed, proceeded to the bank in a third car driven by Belfiore. They held up the bank and seized a substantial sum of money. When they arrived back at the parking lot, it was discovered that Mercantini, for some unknown reason had disappeared. The four others in on the job then fled from the area in the Nielsen car, to the Nielsen home located only minutes away. There, the loot was counted and its division discussed. Lenahan insisted that Mercantini had run out on the gang, was a 'weak link' and in order to prevent a double cross should be liquidated. The defendant described the conversation in this way: 'After we counted the money in Ethel's house * * * Jimmy said to me * * * that Goo-Goo [Mercantini] was the weak link and that if I didn't kill him that he would have to, and it was easier for me because I drove around with him. Later when I spoke with Jimmy on the phone I told him that I was going to meet Goo-Goo at seven o'clock and he told me to remember what I had to do. I knew what he meant, that I was supposed to kill him at seven o'clock when I met him at the apartment.'

Later in the day, Negri talked to Mercantini by phone from the Nielsen home and arranged to meet him in the Philadelphia apartment at seven o'clock in [414 Pa. 25] the evening. Nielsen then drove Negri to Philadelphia. When Mercantini arrived at the apartment, he demanded his promised share of the loot. Negri informed him that Lenahan was still in possession of the money and no division had been made. Negri then phoned Lenahan and arranged to meet him at a certain tavern in Philadelphia about 11:30 p. m. Negri told Mercantini to meet him around midnight on a back street nearby.

Page 598

Around midnight, Mercantini arrived at the appointed place and sat behind the wheel in his parked automobile. Negri joined him in the front seat, informed him he was not going to receive any of the bank money, and shot him twice with the gun he had used in the bank holdup. 1 He then ran back to the tavern where Lenahan, Belfiore and Nielsen were waiting and informed Lenahan, 'that thing you wanted done, is done.' It was then that Negri received his share of the robbery proceeds. He immediately left the tavern, with Belfiore entered an automobile driven by Nielsen, and was taken to New York City.

The shots were heard by two nearby residents. The police were notified, arrived on the scene within minutes and found the dead body of Mercantini slumped in the driver's seat of his automobile.

Later the same day, December fifth, Belfiore was taken into custody in New Jersey and detained in the Gloucester jail. That night about nine-thirty o'clock, while being questioned by police officers from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Camden, New Jersey, he told of Negri's connection with the bank holdup, gave them sufficient facts to lead to the belief that Negri [414 Pa. 26] had killed Mercantini and was registered under an assumed name as a certain hotel in New York City.

Some of the above officers left immediately by squad car for New York City. Others were directed to return to Philadelphia, obtain a warrant, and then proceed to New York City with the warrant after word was relayed that Negri had been apprehended. When the former arrived at their destination, they immediately notified New York City police of their presence and purpose, and accompanied by some New York police officers proceeded to the hotel, arriving there about 2:55 o'clock a. m. on December sixth.

They obtained a key from the night clerk and entered Negri's empty room. Within minutes thereafter, Negri arrived and was placed under arrest. He was stripped of his clothing, handcuffed, and his clothing searched, after which he was permitted to redon his clothing. The room was then searched and disclosed the gun, fully loaded, used in the holdup and killing, hidden in the webbing of the bottom of a chair. A substantial sum of money was also found.

From the hotel, he was taken to a nearby police precinct. The New York authorities filed a formal complaint charging him with possession of a gun without a license. Officers from Philadelphia arrived about 9:30 a. m. with a warrant charging Negri with murder and with being a fugitive from justice. He was informed of the charges, questioned for about two hours, but refused to answer any questions.

At two o'clock in the afternoon of the same day, he was taken before a magistrate where he expressed a willingness to return to Philadelphia and face the charges. The magistrate explained the seriousness of the listed offenses and appointed counsel to confer with and assist him. After Negri conferred privately with his counsel, the latter informed the magistrate that Negri desired to return to Philadelphia. He was immediately[414 Pa. 27] taken before a general sessions judge in New York City, before whom he signed and acknowledged a waiver of extradition.

Accompanied by Philadelphia officers, Negri left New York City for Philadelphia on the five o'clock train. He slept or dozed during most of the trip. Just before the train arrived at the Philadelphia station, he awakened and asked one of the officers, 'Did Vito [Belfiore] blow the whistle on me?' Upon being informed that this was so, he said, 'All right. I'll tell you when we get back to city hall.'

Page 599

The party arrived at the Philadelphia detective headquarters about seven o'clock in the evening. Beginning at 7:30 o'clock p. m., Negri made a statement detailing his version of the facts and circumstances incident to the bank holdup and the killing. He claimed that, he had no intention of killing Mercantini and the gun was accidentally discharged in a struggle over its possession. The statement was recorded on a typewriter. When it was completed about nine o'clock, he read it and suggested certain changes and corrections. When these were made, he initialed them and signed the statement.

The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction is not questioned, but it is argued that trial errors and the denial of certain constitutional guarantees require the grant of a retrial. It is first urged that the defendant was deprived of his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, when upon his arrest he was not immediately given the services of counsel, particularly, before being questioned by the police.

There is no legal or constitutional requirement that a defendant or one suspected of the commission of a crime be afforded counsel immediately upon his arrest, before or while he is being questioned by the police: Commonwealth v. Agoston, 364 Pa. 464, 72 A.2d 575 [414 Pa. 28] (1950); Commonwealth v. Graham, 408 Pa. 155, 182 A.2d 727 (1962); Commonwealth v. Senk, 412 Pa. 184, 194 A.2d 221 (1963); Commonwealth ex rel. Maisenhelder v. Rundle, 414 Pa. 11, 198 A.2d 565 (1964); Begalke v. United States, Ct.Cl., 286 F.2d 606 (1960); Cicencia v. La Gay, 357 U.S. 504, 78 S.Ct. 1297, 2 L.Ed.2d 1523 (1958); Crooker v. State of California, 357 U.S. 433, 78 S.Ct. 1287, 2 L.Ed.2d 1448 (1958).

The cases of Powell v. State of Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932); Hamilton v. State of Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 82 S.Ct. 157, 7 L.Ed.2d 114 (1961); and White v. State of Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 83 S.Ct. 1050, 1051, 10 L.Ed.2d 193 (1963), cited in support of appellant's argument in this respect, are inapposite and do not apply.

The only function counsel...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 practice notes
  • Com. v. Gordon
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • June 30, 1987
    ...v. Jackson, 464 Pa. 292, 296-97, 346 A.2d 746, 747-48 (1975) (different theories for suppression of confession); Commonwealth v. Negri, 414 Pa. 21, 32, 198 A.2d 595, 601 (1964) (different theories of illegality of [364 Pa.Super. 535] arrest), remanded on other grounds on rehearing, 419 Pa. ......
  • Com. v. Thompson, No. 33 EAP 2008
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • December 29, 2009
    ...was the federal constitutional standard governing the legality of a warrantless arrest in existence since 1949. See Commonwealth v. Negri, 414 Pa. 21, 30-31, 198 A.2d 595, 600 (1964) ("The lawfulness of the arrest without warrant, in turn, must be based upon probable cause, which exists whe......
  • Com. v. Donnelly
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • March 31, 1975
    ...Page 637 Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 80 S.Ct. 168, 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959); Draper v. United States, Supra; Commonwealth v. Negri, 414 Pa. 21, 198 A.2d 595 (1964). In any event, probable cause means less evidence than that which justifies convictions. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.......
  • Com. v. Negri
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • September 29, 1965
    ...was imposed on June 17, 1963. Thereafter, an appeal was filed with this Court, and on March 17, 1964, we affirmed the judgment of sentence, 414 Pa. 21, 198 A.2d 595 (1964). Subsequently, on June 22, 1964, decisions were filed by the Supreme Court of the United States in the cases of Escobed......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
43 cases
  • Com. v. Gordon
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • June 30, 1987
    ...v. Jackson, 464 Pa. 292, 296-97, 346 A.2d 746, 747-48 (1975) (different theories for suppression of confession); Commonwealth v. Negri, 414 Pa. 21, 32, 198 A.2d 595, 601 (1964) (different theories of illegality of [364 Pa.Super. 535] arrest), remanded on other grounds on rehearing, 419 Pa. ......
  • Com. v. Thompson, No. 33 EAP 2008
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • December 29, 2009
    ...was the federal constitutional standard governing the legality of a warrantless arrest in existence since 1949. See Commonwealth v. Negri, 414 Pa. 21, 30-31, 198 A.2d 595, 600 (1964) ("The lawfulness of the arrest without warrant, in turn, must be based upon probable cause, which exists whe......
  • Com. v. Donnelly
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • March 31, 1975
    ...Page 637 Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 80 S.Ct. 168, 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959); Draper v. United States, Supra; Commonwealth v. Negri, 414 Pa. 21, 198 A.2d 595 (1964). In any event, probable cause means less evidence than that which justifies convictions. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.......
  • Com. v. Negri
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • September 29, 1965
    ...was imposed on June 17, 1963. Thereafter, an appeal was filed with this Court, and on March 17, 1964, we affirmed the judgment of sentence, 414 Pa. 21, 198 A.2d 595 (1964). Subsequently, on June 22, 1964, decisions were filed by the Supreme Court of the United States in the cases of Escobed......
  • 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