Commonwealth v. Sokorelis

• Decision Date: 12 January 1926
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. SOKORELIS et al. (two cases). SAME v. SOKORELIS.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

254 Mass. 454

150 N.E. 197

COMMONWEALTH

v.SOKORELIS et al. (two cases).

SAME

v.SOKORELIS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Jan. 12, 1926.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Frederick Lawton, Judge.

Strathoulda Sokorelis and others were found guilty of conspiring to burn a building. Peter Sokorelis and another were found guilty of burning a building, and James Sokorelis was found guilty as an accessory after the fact, and they separately except. Exceptions overruled as to first and second cases, and sustained as to last case.A. K. Reading, Dist. Atty., and Robt. T. Bushnell, First Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Boston, for the Commonwealth.

E. J. Tierney, of Lowell, for defendants.

CROSBY, J.

In the first case the defendants Strathoulda and Peter Sokorelis and John Tsafarras were found guilty of conspiring to burn a building, the property of one Bosen. In the second case Tsafarras and Peter Sokorelis were found guilty of burning the building above referred to. In the third case James Sokorelis was found guilty as an accessory after the fact to the burning of said building. The only question before us is whether the evidence was sufficient to justify the convictions.

[1] The evidence showed that the defendant Strathoulda Sokorelis was a tenant of a store in the building, where she was assisted by Peter and James, who were her brothersin-law; that on the night of the fire the store was closed around 11 o'clock by James; that about half an hour later Tsafarras and Peter were seen coming out of it, and about five minutes before 12 Peter and one Bravos were seen leaving the store; that at 1:12 a. m. an alarm was sounded and when the firemen arrived the smoke was so dense they could not enter; that soon afterwards there was a flash similar to an explosion; that when an entrance was effected it was found the fire was confined to the store; that there were two cans on the floor, the contents of which were not determined; that a bottle of kerosene was found and there was an odor of kerosene; that the heat was so intense that all the paper and paint were burned off the walls; that both the front and rear doors were locked. Upon this evidence it is plain it could have been found that the fire was of incendiary origin.

The goods and fixtures in the store were insured for $3,500, and after the fire they were inventoried for about $3,700.

Theodore Bosen (whose mother owned the building) testified that on the second day after the fire he met James Sokorelis, who invited him to a Greek coffee house to have some coffee; that they were joined by Peter Sokorelis, who asked the witness to go to the house of Strathoulda; that after they arrived there, in the presence of these three defendants, the following conversation occurred: Mrs. Sokorelis said she had lost money by the fire; that she did not set it. She said to the witness, ‘I don't know maybe your mother put the fire.’ He replied that his mother saw Peter and Tsafarras at half past 11 going out of the store. James then said to the witness: ‘Tell your mother not to say nothing’ and she will get ‘good money’ from the fire; that the insurance agent was his friend; that he (James) was going to get $3,000 in cash from the fire; that he knew how to do that kind of business, and had set two fires, and that this was the third one; that he obtained $500 from the first and $2,800 from the second, and that he was going to get $3,000 from this fire if the witness' mother said nothing. This witness further testified in substance that James told him how he was going to get $3,000; that he had told the insurance agent that $700 worth of cigars were burned, but that the cigars were worth only $50; that he would get $1,500 for the soda fountain; that he had had it fifteen years and it was worth only $200. The witness further testified that James told him if any one came to his mother, to tell her not to say anything and he (James) would tell the insurance men to ‘give her good money.’ He also testified that he was given two drinks out of a bottle during this interview.

[2] All these defendants, and Bosen, were Greeks who spoke English imperfectly, but there is nothing to show that each did not fully understand the above conversation. Neither Strathoulda nor Peter dissented from what was said by James, and could have been found to have agreed thereto; if so, it is plain the jury could have found that the three defendants who were present were engaged in a common plan and purpose to burn the building and obtain the insurance on the goods and fixtures in the store. Upon such findings verdicts of guilty against them for conspiracy were warranted.

[3][4] The testimony of these three defendants, that the interview testified to by Bosen never occurred and that none of them knew him, might have been disbelieved by the jury. If it were found that their testimony was intentionally...