Commonwealth v. Donato
| Decision Date | 26 February 1926 |
| Docket Number | 227-1925,228-1925 |
| Citation | 87 Pa.Super. 285 |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. Donato et al., Appellants |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued December 16, 1925
Appeals by defendants, from judgments and sentences of Q. S Philadelphia County-1924, No. 1065, in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Thomas Donato and Giacomo Campaniola.
Indictments for attempting to extort and for conspiracy to extort. Before Henninger, P. J., 50th Judicial District, specially presiding.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Error assigned, among others, was refusal of defendant's motion for a new trial.
Affirmed.
Harry A. Mackey, for appellants.
Samuel P. Rotan, District Attorney, and with him Michael A. Foley Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
Defendants were indicted on two bills, one charging them with an attempt to extort money from Luigi Colacino and Antonio Turco in violation of the Act of May 27, 1897, P. L. 111, and the other charging them with conspiring to extort money from Colacino and Turco. They were tried jointly on both indictments before the same jury and found guilty on one count of the conspiracy bill and acquitted on the bill charging an attempt to extort money. The conspiracy bill contained three counts. The first count charged defendants with conspiring to arrest Colacino and Turco with the intent to procure money from them by means of the arrest. The second count charged that while Colacino and Turco were under arrest defendants conspired to obtain $ 500 from them as a price or reward for quashing the charges on which they were arrested and in custody. The third count charged that they entered into a conspiracy for the purpose of obtaining $ 50 from Colacino and Turco. The bill charging an attempt to extort money was based upon the same transactions. The conviction was on the second count of the conspiracy bill, the learned trial judge having directed an acquittal on the first and third counts.
An inspection of the abstract of testimony, which was agreed upon by the learned counsel for defendants and the district attorney, shows that the evidence introduced by the Commonwealth was sufficient to warrant the finding of the following facts: Donato, one of the defendants, was a licensed detective, and Campaniola, the other defendant, was a clerk in the office of Magistrate Ferri, whose office is in South Philadelphia. Colacino and Turco lived at 4622 Worth Street, in the northeast section of Philadelphia known as Frankford. On the evening of October 24, 1923, at 7:00 P. M. Donato went to their home and informed them that he had a warrant for their arrest on the charge of highway robbery and arrested them and took them in an automobile to an Italian club in Tacony about two miles away, where he found Campaniola, who got into the automobile which proceeded to Magistrate Ferri's office, which they reached about 10:00 P. M. Defendants took the prisoners into a private room in the rear of the magistrate's office where Campaniola, in the presence of Donato, told them that the offense for which they were arrested was a very serious one but that if they desired it they could " get this thing fixed up." When Turco asked what that meant Campaniola said that the matter could be fixed up and settled for $ 500. Colacino and Turco started to cry and said that they didn't do anything and they didn't see why they would have to pay $ 500, and that they could not raise that amount of money. Later in the evening Campaniola told them they could get out for $ 150. Subsequently Campaniola said they could be released on an agreement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. of Pa. v. Kline
...there was not a general verdict but an answer by the jury to each count. In the cases of Com. v. Sharpless, 31 Pa.Super. 96, and Com. v. Donato, 87 Pa.Super. 285, the principle announced in the Mills case is recognized. In the Sharpless case, Judge Rice said (p. 101): "It cannot be declared......
-
Com. v. Parrotto
...accumulated for over a year after the officers had obtained convincing evidence of his guilt. But, as stated in Commonwealth v. Donato, 1926, 87 Pa.Super. 285, 288, it is vain to speculate upon the reasons which moved the jury to do what it did. 'To the jury belongs the power to err, not al......
-
Com. v. Banks
...v. Burke, 175 Pa.Super. 482, 106 A.2d 684 (1954); Commonwealth v. Cancelliere & Cancelliere, 99 Pa.Super. 193 (1930); Commonwealth v. Donato, 87 Pa.Super. 285 (1926).5 Norvell's appeal in the Illinois Supreme Court was obviously a collateral attack. See People v. Norvell, 25 Ill.2d 169, 182......
-
Commonwealth v. Watt
... ... the commonwealth by the verdict on the earlier count which ... was an essential element in the fifth count, such is not ... sufficient ground for arresting judgment on the verdict of ... [187 ... Pa.Super. 54] See, also, Commonwealth v. Donato, 87 ... Pa.Super. 285; Commonwealth v. Wade, 156 Pa.Super ... 88, 39 A.2d 460; Commonwealth v. Shrodes, 158 ... Pa.Super. 135, 44 A.2d 319 ... Since the ... crimes of burglary and larceny are different, there can be no ... inconsistency in convicting on one count and not the other, ... ...