Commonwealth v. Scicchitani
| Decision Date | 28 February 1922 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. SCICCHITANI. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions and Appeal from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Louis S. Cox, Judge.
Rocco Scicchitani was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he brings exceptions, and appeals from an order overruling his motion in arrest of judgment. Exceptions overruled, and denial of motion affirmed.
The indictment alleged that defendant assaulted and beat one Riley with intent to kill and murder him, and thereby did kill and murder him. It was defendant's contention that since the indictment did not allege that the killing was with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought, and the evidence did not show that it was committed in the commission or attempted commission of a crime punishable with death or life imprisonment, or committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty, he could be convicted only of murder in the second degree. He requested a charge that on all the evidence the jury should not return a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, which the court refused. He also moved in arrest of judgment on the same ground.
Joseph T. Zottoli, of Boston, for appellant.
Endicott P. Saltonstall, Dist. Atty., and Charles W. Blood, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Boston, for the Commonwealth.
The defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree upon an indictment, the material part of which is as follows:
‘The jurors for the commonwealth of Massachusetts on their oath present, that Rocco Scicchitani on the twenty-first day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty, at Cambridge, in the county of Middlesex aforesaid, did assault and beat one Thomas J. Riley with intent to kill and murder him, and by such assault and beating did kill and murder said Thomas J. Riley.’
There was evidence that the defendant shot and killed Riley with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought; but there was no evidence that the homicide was committed by the defendant while in the commission or attempted commission of a crime punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with extreme atrocity or cruelty. At the close of the evidence the defendant requested the court to charge the jury:
‘On all the evidence the jury should not return a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree.’
The court refused to give this instruction and the defendant excepted.
After the verdict the defendant filed a motion in arrest of judgment, on the ground that there was no evidence that the homicide was committed by the defendant while engaged in the commission or attempted commission of a crime punishable with death or imprisonment for life; that no evidence was introduced to show that the homicide was committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty; that the only ground upon which the defendant could have been found guilty of murder in the first degree was that the homicide was committed with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought; that said indictment charged the defendant with committing murder with malice aforethought and not with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought; and that the jury had no right to convict the defendant of an offense greater than that charged in the indictment, to wit, murder in the second degree. The court denied this motion; and the defendant excepted thereto, and appealed from the order of the court overruling the motion in arrest of judgment.
The defendant's request for the instruction that ‘on all the evidence the jury should not return a verdict of guilty of murder in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Bartolini
...93 N.E. 809, affirmed in Jordan v. Massachusetts, 225 U.S. 167, 32 S.Ct. 651, 56 L.Ed. 1038, and in other cases. Commonwealth v. Scicchitani, 240 Mass. 402, 134 N.E. 257;Commonwealth v. DiStasio, Mass. 1 N.E.2d 189. The defendant was entitled to further particulars as a matter of right only......
-
Com. v. Devlin
...murder. Commonwealth v. Desmarteau, 16 Gray 1, 11; Commonwealth v. Min Sing, 202 Mass. 121, 131-132, 88 N.E. 918; Commonwealth v. Scicchitani, 240 Mass. 402, 404, 134 N.E. 257; Commonwealth v. DiStasio, 298 Mass. 562, 11 N.E.2d 799. The vague expression 'and/or' used by the Commonwealth in ......
-
Metcalf v. Com.
...c. 277, § 79, and contained no allegation of murder in the second degree, it charged murder in the first degree. Commonwealth v. Scicchitani, 240 Mass. 402, 404, 134 N.E. 257. On June 7, 1956, Reginald, who was represented by counsel, pleaded guilty in the Superior Court to murder in the se......
-
Com. v. Baker
...degree, it charged murder in the first degree. Metcalf v. Commonwealth, 338 Mass. 648, 649, 156 N.E.2d 649; Commonwealth v. Scicchitani, 240 Mass. 402, 404, 134 N.E. 257. The underlying question for decision is whether a person charged with the crime of murder in the first degree, a capital......