Com. v. Reginelli

• Decision Date: 15 September 1966
• Citation: 208 Pa.Super. 344,222 A.2d 605
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Angelo A. REGINELLI, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

Page 605

222 A.2d 605

208 Pa.Super. 344

COMMONWEALTH v. Angelo A. REGINELLI, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Sept. 15, 1966.

Robert F. Simone, Philadelphia, for appellant.

J. D. Crawford, Asst. Dist. Atty., Arlen Specter, Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before ERVIN, P.J., and WRIGHT, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, and SPAULDING, JJ.

JACOBS, Judge.

Angelo A. Reginelli and Herbert Price were found guilty of arson after their cases were consolidated for trial before the Hon. Edward J. GRIFFITHS, sitting without a jury. Each appeals from the sentence imposed after his motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial were overruled. This opinion decides Reginelli's appeal; Price's appeal is the subject of a separate opinion filed today, Commonwealth v. Price, Pa.Super., 222 A.2d 610 (1966).

At about 9 p.m. on Saturday, July 1, 1961, a fire occurred in Reginelli's shoe repair shop and leather goods store, located at 6545 Roosevelt Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Reginelli had locked up the store between 8 and 8:30 p.m. and left the premises. At the trial, Lieutenant Purnell B. Short, a member of the Philadelphia Fire Department for eighteen years and an investigator for the Philadelphia Fire Marshall's office for five years, investigating about 500 fires each year, testified that it was his opinion that the fire was incendiary in origin. The Commonwealth also presented evidence that on May 24, 1961, about five weeks before the fire, Reginelli had caused the insurance on the contents of his store to be increased from $6,000 to $31,000, and that on June 28, 1961, three days before the fire, a distraint for rent in the amount of $950 had been issued against him.

A Commonwealth witness, Edward Klayman, then testified that he was introduced to Reginelli in the early part of July, 1961 by a friend, Norman Prussell, who subsequently died in 1963. On that date Klayman overheard a conversation in which Reginelli told Prussell that he had been questioned by the Fire Marshall's office and that he was very worried about the view they took concerning the fire. Klayman said that he then drove Prussell and Reginelli to meet Price at a luncheonette near the Einstine Medical Center on Fifth Street. According to Klayman the four proceeded to Fifth and Chestnut Streets, at which point Reginelli, Price and Prussell left the automobile and came back within ten or fifteen minutes. After returning to the car, the two appellants and Prussell divided the sum of $2,000 among themselves. According to Klayman, Reginelli was upset and said: '* * * now I don't have my business, I don't have a job, and I'm having trouble with my wife. The Fire Marshalls are bothering me.' Appellant Price then said to Reginelli: 'You don't have to think about the prosecution. They don't know what's in your mind. You are insured for arson. But we are professionals. We know what we use, and its undetectable, believe me.'

Reginelli took the stand and testified that on July 5, 1961 he went to an insurance adjuster by the name of Feinstein, located at Fifth and Chestnut Streets, who advanced him $2,000 in check form and for that $2,000 he retained Feinstein to adjust his claim. He then went to the Central Penn National Bank and cashed the $2,000 check. He denied that he ever saw or knew Klayman or Price prior to his arrest, which occurred in 1964. He testified that there was no one with him when he picked up the money. Price took the stand and testified that he never knew Reginelli and was never in his shoe store. He stated that he was friendly with Norman Prussell and had known Edward Klayman for twenty years. Both appellants denied setting the fire or causing the same to be set.

In rebuttal the Commonwealth called William Frith, a detective lieutenant in the Philadelphia Police Department, who had questioned Reginelli on July 15, 1964. The witness testified that Reginelli had told him during the interrogation that at the time of going to the insurance adjuster and receiving the $2,000 he was with Klayman, Prussell and Price. William Boardman, of the arson squad of the National Board of Fire Underwriters, also testified in rebuttal on behalf of the Commonwealth that at the interrogation Reginelli admitted that he knew Price and admitted being with Prussell, Klayman and Price the day he got the $2,000. At the interrogation, however, Reginelli did deny that he divided the $2,000 with anybody else and stated that he took the money and went by bus to New Jersey shortly after he cashed the check.

Reginelli appeals on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction, that the testimony of Edward Klayman should have been stricken by the court below because the witness was incompetent, and that his constitutional rights were violated because at the time of the interrogation he was not advised of his right to counsel or the reason for his arrest or of his right to remain silent.

I.

The test of the sufficiency of the evidence, irrespective of whether it is direct or circumstantial, is whether accepting as true all of the evidence upon which, if believed, the trier of fact could properly have based its verdict, it is sufficient in law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. Commonwealth v. Whiting, 409 Pa. 492, 187 A.2d 563 (1963). After a verdict of guilty, we accept as true all of the Commonwealth's evidence upon which, if believed, the jury (or a judge sitting as a jury) could have properly based its verdict and it is well settled that a jury or a trial court can believe all or a part of or none of a defendant's statements, confessions or testimony, or the testimony of any witness. Commonwealth v. Kirkland, 413 Pa. 48, 195 A.2d 338 (1963). As was said by Judge WRIGHT in Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, 202 Pa.Super. 520, 524, 198 A.2d 419, 421 (1964), a case heard by a judge where a jury trial was waived: 'The credibility of the witnesses was for the trial judge, and we must now view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth.' Viewed in this light, the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction.

In an arson case the corpus delicti is established when it is shown that there has been a fire of incendiary origin. Commonwealth v. Nasuti, 385 Pa. 436, 123 A.2d 435 (1956). The corpus delicti can be proved by circumstantial evidence and expert testimony as to the incendiary origin of the fire is admissible. Id. The expert in this case, Lieutenant Short, was well qualified to give an expert opinion both by training, which included in-service training and seminars at Purdue University, and by actual experience. His opinion that the fire was of incendiary origin was based on his finding that there were two separate fires not physically connected, that there was evidence of flammable liquid at both fires, and that there was a torching effect on the front of the store indicating a rapid and severe type of fire. Appellant complains that the court below believed Lieutenant Short's testimony that the fire was of incendiary origin when there were other facts present which tended to show that the fire was accidental. Some of those facts were that there were flammable liquids and materials present in the shoe shop and used in the business of shoe repairing, that a partition separating the two fires did not go to the ceiling and that the fire was gotten under control in approximately thirty minutes. However, there was nothing to show that any of the liquids in the store had been spilled or had caught fire and the facts were simply ones which went to the weight of the Lieutenant's testimony and were for the resolution of the court below sitting as judge and jury. We are satisfied that Lieutenant Short's testimony was sufficient to support a finding that the fire was of incendiary origin.

II.

Appellant complains that Klayman's testimony should not have been considered by the court because Klayman was incompetent. Since the Act of May 23, 1887, P.L. 158 § 1, 19 P.S. § 681, all persons with certain enumerated exceptions not here relevant, are fully competent witnesses in any criminal proceeding unless the contrary can be shown and the burden of proving incompetency is upon the person asserting it. Commonwealth...