Commonwealth v. Diaco

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Citation111 A. 879,268 Pa. 305
Docket Number334
PartiesCommonwealth v. Diaco, Appellant
Decision Date31 December 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

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 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.

The final question is: "Was there sufficient evidence offered by the Commonwealth to convict of murder in the first degree?" Section 2 of the Act of February 15, 1870, P.L. 15, requires us to carefully consider this matter; but in so doing we must accept as true all the evidence in the case from which the jury might have found the murder was wilful, deliberate and premeditated: McGinnis v. Com., 102 Pa. 66; Com. v. Morrison, 193 Pa. 613. This renders ineffective much of appellant's argument, and materially narrows the scope of the inquiry raised by the assignment.

The evidence produced by the district attorney showed that, on several occasions before the day of the murder, deceased and defendant had quarrelled, and at one time the latter had said: "If the old man will insult me I will shoot him;" and at another: "If he ever puts his hand in his pocket I will shoot him before he takes it out." On the day of the murder they and others were at the house of Joe Diaco, who was defendant's brother and deceased's son-in-law. A dispute arose between deceased and Joe Diaco they grappled, the wife of Joe called for help, and defendant rushed in, separated them and put deceased out of the house. Defendant had some words with and struck his brother, whereupon the latter went upstairs and got a pistol, which def...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Com. v. Kravitz
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 18 April 1960
    ...65, 66; Com. v. Carelli, 1925, 281 Pa. 602, 605, 127 A. 305, 306; Com. v. Priest, 1922, 272 Pa. 549, 550, 116 A. 403; Com. v. Diaco, 1920, 268 Pa. 305, 306, 111 A. 879, 880.' Commonwealth v. Logan, 361 Pa. 186, 192, 63 A.2d 28, 30, We shall summarize the 1,500 pages of circumstantial eviden......
  • Com. v. Burns
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 21 January 1963
    ...65, 66; Com. v. Carelli, 1925, 281 Pa. 602, 605, 127 A. 305, 306; Com. v. Priest, 1922, 272 Pa. 549, 550, 116 A. 403; Com. v. Diaco, 1920, 268 Pa. 305, 306, 111 A. 879, In reviewing this record to determine the sufficiency of all of the elements and ingredients of murder in the first degree......
  • Com. v. Gooslin
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 19 March 1963
    ...65, 66; Com. v. Carelli, 1945, 281 Pa. 602, 605, 127 A. 305, 306; Com. v. Priest, 1922, 272 Pa. 549, 550, 116 A. 403; Com. v. Diaco, 1920, 268 Pa. 305, 306, 11 A. 879, In Commonwealth v. Kravitz, 400 Pa. 198, 206, 161 A.2d 861 page 865, the Court said: "'* * * Proof by eye witnesses or dire......
  • Commonwealth v. Blanchard
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 11 May 1942
    ...234 Pa. 570, 571, 83 A. 430, 431, Ann. Cas.1913C, 1388; Commonwealth v. Harris, 237 Pa. 597, 599, 85 A. 875, 876; Commonwealth v. Diaco, 268 Pa. 305, 306, 111 A. 879, 880; Commonwealth v. Priest, 272 Pa. 549, 550, 116 A. 403; Commonwealth v. Caliendo, 279 Pa. 293, 297, 123 A. 797, 798; Comm......
  • 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