Commonwealth v. Principatti

• Decision Date: 18 March 1918
• Docket Number: 107
• Citation: 260 Pa. 587,104 A. 53
• Parties: Commonwealth v. Principatti, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

104 A. 53

260 Pa. 587

Commonwealth v. Principatti, Appellant

No. 107

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

March 18, 1918

Argued February 4, 1918

Appeal, No. 107, Oct. T., 1917, by defendant, from sentence of O. & T. Beaver Co., March Sessions, 1917, No. 3, on verdict of guilty of murder of the first degree, in case of Commonwealth v. Dominic Principatti. Reversed.

Indictment for murder. Before CORBETT, P.J., specially presiding.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Verdict of guilty of murder of the first degree. The defendant was sentenced to be electrocuted. Defendant appealed.

Errors assigned were rulings on evidence and instructions to the jury.

All assignments that show rulings or instructions conflicting with the views here expressed, together with the twenty-ninth, which complains of the sentence, are sustained. The judgment is reversed with a venire facias de novo.

John B McClure, with him Charles R. May and Harold F. Reed, for appellant. -- The trial judge erred in excluding evidence of the defendant concerning threats made by the deceased against him: Com. v. Lenox, 3 Brewster's Reports 249; Com. v. Colandro, 231 Pa. 343; Com. v Salyards, 158 Pa. 501; Com. v. Keller, 191 Pa. 122; Com. v. Curcio, 216 Pa. 380; Com. v. Hazlett, 14 Pa.Super. 351.

The refusal to permit the defendant to state his reason for shooting was error: Com. v. Woodward, 102 Mass. 155.

It was error to refuse to withdraw a juror and continue the case upon motion of the defendant because of the prejudicial remarks of the district attorney: Com. v. Nicely, 130 Pa. 261.

Louis E. Graham, District Attorney, with him Frank H. Laird, for appellee. -- There was no element of self-defense in this case: Com. v. Breyessee, 160 Pa. 451; Com. v. Ware, 137 Pa. 465; Com. v. Mitchka, 209 Pa. 274.

Before BROWN, C.J., POTTER, MOSCHZISKER, FRAZER and WALLING, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE MOSCHZISKER:

The defendant, Dominic Principatti, appeals from a judgment sentencing him to be electrocuted for committing murder of the first degree.

The evidence presents, inter alia, the following facts: Principatti and the deceased, one Tony Amodeo, had, for about eight months, lived in the same boarding house; on Sunday evening, February 18, 1917, the defendant and several others were assembled in the dining room of this abode, when, a little after seven o'clock, Amodeo walked in and remarked to one Joe Spitaro, "I want to say something to you," at the same time beckoning him to follow; the two walked out into the yard and stopped eight feet from the kitchen door; they had been standing thus about two minutes, the noise from a passing train rendering conversation impossible, when Principatti appeared, and, without uttering a word, shot Amodeo; then, in quick order, a second shot was fired, both bullets entering the head of the victim, who died at once; shortly after this, when the body of the deceased was examined, a stiletto was found fastened to a belthook under his clothes, three loaded cartridges were discovered in his trouser pockets, a razor in an inside coat pocket, and a pistol was handed to the man who was engaged in making the examination, by an unknown onlooker who, apparently, picked it up near the spot where the dead body lay; immediately following the shooting, Principatti returned to the house and said to his sister, who was the landlady, "I killed him, I am going to surrender to the officers and the court, because he wanted to kill me"; and, on the same evening, defendant gave himself up to a constable, to whom he handed over his gun. There is no conflict of testimony on the above facts.

Spitaro, the only eyewitness to the alleged crime, said that, before the shooting took place, Amodeo had his hands in his overcoat pockets; but, when asked the question, "Did you see anything in his hands?" he replied, "No, sir, it was too dark." When Principatti took the stand in his own defense, he stated that, four or five minutes after Amodeo had departed with Spitaro, he, the defendant, left the room for the purpose of going to the toilet in the back yard; that, as soon as the kitchen door closed behind him, he saw Spitaro and Amodeo standing together, the latter with both hands in his overcoat pockets; that, "when he [Amodeo] seen me, he pulled his hand up this way [indicating], and I seen his revolver"; then the witness immediately added, "When I seen that [Amodeo's revolver], I pulled my revolver out and shot." In answer to the next question, accused said he was "so scared," when he fired the first shot, that "a minute or two minutes afterwards" he fired a second.

The foregoing references to the testimony and brief review of the material facts are sufficient to enable one to understand clearly the several matters before us for determination.

We gather, from offers of proof, requests for charge and other such matter upon the record, that the defense the accused endeavored to stand upon, but which, owing to a series of adverse rulings, was not fully developed, is as follows: That Amodeo had conversed with defendant on Friday, February 9, 1917, nine days prior to the killing, and, on that occasion, the deceased said "he was a member of the 'Black Hand Gang,' sent over to New Galilee to murder the defendant," for the reason that the latter previously had killed a member of that organization; that he, Amodeo, however, "could fix the matter up, and prevent the defendant from being killed, if he would pay him the sum of two hundred dollars, and that if he did not pay the deceased the sum of two hundred dollars, he would kill the defendant"; that, thereupon defendant became frightened, and promised to give Amodeo the two hundred dollars on the next pay day, which occurred six days before the date of the killing; that defendant "had knowledge, at the time of the shooting and prior thereto, deceased was a member of the 'Black Hand Gang,' and that defendant knew and believed the 'Black Hand Gang' was a society of men who extort money from people under threat of killing"; further, that defendant believed, if he did not give Amodeo the two hundred dollars which he demanded, the latter would kill him; that, four days prior to the shooting, defendant, being in fear, went to see a constable in the neighborhood, and told the latter of the threat to kill, for the purpose of obtaining lawful protection. In short, the defense was that, while, at the moment of the shooting, Principatti intended to kill Amodeo, yet such intention was instantaneously impelled by the former's belief that he was in imminent danger of death, or it was the result of a passion of fear, influenced by Amodeo's previous threats, but immediately caused by the sight of the pistol in the hands of the deceased.

Fragments of this defense were permitted in evidence; but, in the main, accused was not given an opportunity properly to present his side of the case. His counsel repeatedly endeavored, by formal offers and specific questioning, to introduce the fact that Principatti was "afraid" of Amodeo, "frightened" and "scared" because of the latter's threat to kill him, together with the detailed circumstances attending this threat; he also offered to prove Amodeo's connection with the so-called "Black Hand Society" and what that body was thought by the accused to be, its wicked objects, etc.; furthermore, he tendered evidence that the night of the killing was the first and only opportunity that "deceased had to do defendant harm," proposing to give details as to the latter's whereabouts from the time of the threat to the date of the alleged crime, in order to corroborate this last offer; finally, counsel for defendant proffered testimony concerning the action of his client, three or four days prior to the date of the alleged crime, in going to a local constable to ask for protection, this latter offer being made "for the purpose of showing that defendant attempted to pursue his legal remedy in reference to the threats; likewise, for the further purpose of showing that he feared the deceased and was afraid he would carry out his threat to kill him." The accused should have been given a fair opportunity to substantiate all of these offers by evidence.

As to the right to present evidence concerning the alleged threats by the deceased and their effect upon defendant, see Wharton on Homicide, 2d ed., secs. 610-11; Henry on Pennsylvania Trial Evidence, p. 33; 21 Cyc. 893, par. "e"; Underhill on Criminal Evidence, sec. 326; Com. v. Garanchoskie, 251 Pa. 247, 253; Com. v. Curcio, 216 Pa. 380; and Com. v. Keller, 191 Pa. 122, 132. On the defendant's right to prove his state of mind, either by his own or other competent testimony, see Com. v. Wooley, 259 Pa. 249, 251; 21 Cyc. 889, par. "b"; and opinion by RICE, P.J., in Com. v. Hazlett, 14 Pa.Super. 352, 369.

So far as defendant's offers relating to the "Black Hand Society" and Amodeo's connection therewith are concerned, in Com. v. Varano, 258 Pa. 442, 446, we recently said that, when sufficient reason exists therefor, an inquiry such as here attempted is permissible; and in Commonwealth v. Curcio, 216 Pa. 380, a case somewhat like the one at bar, we granted a new trial because a defense of the same general character as the one now before us was not given due or proper judicial consideration at the trial there under review.

Since the district attorney, apparently in the hearing of the jury repeatedly objected to defendant's offers to prove that he was afraid of the deceased, placing his objections upon the express ground that the two men were sleeping and eating in the same house from the time of the alleged threat to the date of the killing, the accused was entitled to an opportunity to show that, notwithstanding he had a common abode...