Commonwealth v. Diaco, 334

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Writing for the Court: MR. JUSTICE SIMPSON:
• Citation: 111 A. 879,268 Pa. 305
• Docket Number: 334
• Decision Date: 31 December 1920
• Parties: Commonwealth v. Diaco, Appellant

111 A. 879

268 Pa. 305

Commonwealth
v.
Diaco, Appellant

No. 334

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

December 31, 1920

Argued: October 13, 1919

Appeal, No. 334, Jan. T., 1919, by defendant, from judgment of O. & T. Delaware Co., Sept. T., 1917, No. 262, on verdict of guilty of murder of the first degree in case of Commonwealth v. Domenico Diaco. Affirmed.

Indictment for murder. Before JOHNSON, P.J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Verdict of guilty of murder of the first degree, upon which the court passed sentence of death. Defendant appealed.

Errors assigned were as stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

The assignments of error are all overruled, the judgment and sentence of the court below are affirmed, and the record is remitted for the purpose of execution.

John DeH. White, for appellant.

John B. Hannum, Jr., District Attorney, with him William Taylor and Wm. J. MacCarter, Jr., Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

Before BROWN, C.J., MOSCHZISKER, FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON and KEPHART, JJ.

OPINION

[268 Pa. 306] MR. JUSTICE SIMPSON:

Appellant was indicted for the murder of Vincenzo Lucia, was tried, convicted of murder of the first degree, and sentenced to death. He appeals to this court, and assigns but one error relating to the taking of the testimony, viz: "The court erred in having an interpreter who could not thoroughly understand the dialect of the defendant and express himself properly in English." It appears from the record that the interpreter referred to was the one regularly used in the court, and that he and another, then present, disagreed regarding the true interpretation of certain answers of defendant given in the Italian language; but there is nothing to show which was correct, and, so far as appears, defendant made no request to have a different interpreter used, and took no exception touching the matter. The assignment must, therefore, be overruled.

Defendant also assigns as error the following language in the charge of the court: "If you find that this threat [of decedent] and the attempt to draw this pistol, if it was [111 A. 880] so, -- remember the Commonwealth denies all this --" In this excerpt the court below was referring to the evidence of defendant himself, which directly contradicted that given by the State's witnesses, and hence the caution "remember the Commonwealth denies all this," which is the only thing complained of, was not objectionable; even if a fraction of a sentence could properly be assigned as error.

...