Commonwealth v. Caruso

• Decision Date: 25 February 1925
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. CARUSO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

251 Mass. 362

146 N.E. 664

COMMONWEALTH

v.CARUSO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

Feb. 25, 1925.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Essex County; J. F. Quinn, Judge.

Vito Caruso was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he excepts. Exceptions overruled.

S. H. Donnell, of Peabody, for the Commonwealth.

M. A. Sullivan, of Lawrence, for defendant.

CARROLL, J.

The defendant was indicted for murder in the first degree of his wife, Maria Caruso, at Lawrence on July 2, 1922. The jury returned a verdict of ‘guilty of murder in the second degree.’

The defendant and his wife entered their home, where they lived together, about 30 minutes after 10 o'clock on the night of July 1, 1922. The defendant left his home the next morning about 4 o'clock, and a few minutes later, in company with his brother and a chauffeur, went by automobile to Salisbury Beach. Returning from the beach about 1 o'clock in the afternoon of July 2, he entered his home and there saw his wife, partly dressed, lying dead on the bed, with blood on her body and on the bedclothes. The commonwealth contended that the defendant killed his wife at some time between 30 minutes after 10 o'clock on the night of July 1 and 4 o'clock on the morning of July 2. The contention of the defendant was that, when he left his house on the morning of July 2, his wife was alive and bade him goodbye, and that he did not see her again until he found her dead.

There was evidence that unmerous wounds were on the body of Mrs. Caruso, some of which were fatal, and several bruises, as well as nail marks and cuts on her face and neck; that a baseball bat belonging to the defendant was found in the house, ‘spotted with blood’; that it was sufficient to cause the injury found on Mrs. Caruso's forehead; that a knife with human blood stains upon it was found in a container in the house; that some of the wounds could have been caused by this knife; that three ‘and possibly four’ different weapons were used, and that ‘strong force was applied to the throat with the hand.’ The defendant and his wife occupied the same bed on the night of July 1. A jury could have found that no one else was in the house during the night; that after the left the tenement no one entered it until he returned. From the testimony showing the lividity, the temperature and stiffening of the body of the victim, it could have been found that she died on the morning of July 2, before the defendant left the home.

[1] Mrs. Caruso was insured in the sum of $750, payable to the defendant. The title to the real estate where they lived stood in her name; she had $900 on deposit standing in the bank in her name. It appeared that at one time the defendant and his wife had trouble about the property; that she told him, ‘I am the owner of the property; get out;’ that he went to California, but returned; that in September, 1918, the defendant brought a libel for divorce against his wife, alleging cruel and abusive treatment; that there was no return of service on her, and the libel was dismissed on October of that year; that at one time, about 2 years and [251 Mass. 366]6 months before the murder, the defendant was heard to say to his wife during a dispute between them, ‘Some time I will kill you;’ that on the inside of the door entering the defendant's house there was a Yale lock and a large bolt underneath the lock. The defendant stated that his wife always bolted the door when he was out of the house; that on the morning of July 2, when he left the house, his wife was standing up, and he asked her to go to bed; that she said, ‘All right, I will go to bed when you go; I want to be sure that this door is locked;’ that ‘she got hold of the knob and shook the door.’ He was asked how he opened this door on his return, and replied, ‘I take my key; I put it in the lock; I turned it; I opened the door.’ It also appeared that at some time after the defendant entered the house gas was escaping from an open gas jet. It did not distinctly appear when this gas jet was opened. When the defendant discovered the body of his wife he was much disturbed, and was seen coming from the house ‘crying and pulling his hair.’ In his statement to the police he said, ‘The gas got the best of me and I fell.’ There was evidence tending to show that this statement was false, and the commonwealth contended that his conduct after discovering the dead body was simulated, as was his apparently cheerful conduct during the day before the discovery was made. Without going further into the details, there was evidence to prove that the defendant's wife was murdered by him, while in her home, when no one but the victim and the defendant were present. It was for the jury to say whether the evidence convinced them of the defendant's guilt. Commonwealth v. Best, 180 Mass. 492, 497, 62 N. E. 748.

[2] Dr. Dow, the medical examiner of the district, testified in the district court; he died before the trial of the defendant in the superior court. The defendant objected to the stenographers reading their notes of Dr. Dow's testimony at the former trial, on the ground that the notes did not contain all of his testimony and the testimony was given ‘on a different issue.’ The court found as a fact that all the testimony of Dr. Dow was taken by one or both of the stenographers; that it was accurately taken; that counsel for the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Dow and did cross-examine him at the former trial. The former testimony of Dr. Dow at the trial of the defendant in the district court was upon the same...