Commonwealth v. Teregno

• Decision Date: 14 November 1919
• Citation: 124 N.E. 889,234 Mass. 56
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. TEREGNO et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

234 Mass. 56

124 N.E. 889

COMMONWEALTH

v.TEREGNO et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

Nov. 14, 1919.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Hampden County; Nelson P. Brown, Judge.

Antonio Teregno, prosecuted with Maria Cammerota, was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he excepts. Exceptions overruled.

Joseph B. Ely, Dist. Atty., of Springfield, and William T. Dillon, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Holyoke, for the Commonwealth.

Frank M. Zottoli, of Boston, and Silvio Martinelli, of Springfield, for defendants.

BRALEY, J.

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] The indictment having charged in three counts, and the jury having found, that Raffaele Cammerota was feloniously killed by the defendant Teregno, who has been convicted of murder in the first degree, and the defendant Maria Cammerota, wife of the decedent, who has been convicted of manslaughter, the case is before this court on exceptions taken by Teregno, which will be considered in the order of presentation. While the indictment does not charge that an axe was used as the lethal weapon, yet evidence that an axe had been found at the place of the homicide on which, ‘there was a hair and * * * white substance’ was admissible, as well as the evidence showing the appearance of the decedent's body on the following day, and the condition of the premises as observed by the witnesses. It was not too remote in time, and the environment as protrayed would enable the jury to understand and properly to apply the subsequent evidence descriptive of the means used, and the manner whereby the homicide was accomplished. Commonwealth v. Powers, 123 Mass. 244;Commonwealth v. Holmes, 157 Mass. 233, 32 N. E. 6,34 Am. St. Rep. 270;Leplante v. Mills, 165 Mass. 487, 43 N. E. 294. The defendants were tried jointly and the confession of each, not having been improperly obtained, was admissible under the instructions of the judge that the jury were to consider the admissions as affecting only the party making them. Commonwealth v. Storti, 177 Mass. 339, 58 N. E. 1021;Commonwealth v. Killion, 194 Mass. 153, 80 N. E. 222,10 Ann. Cas. 911;Commonwealth v. Richmond, 207 Mass. 240, 93 N. E. 816,20 Ann. Cas. 1269;Commonwealth v. Borasky, 214 Mass. 313, 101 N. E. 377. Nor can we hold that the evidence of Civitella Cammerota, daughter of the decedent and of Maria, was improperly admitted. It is true she was only seven years of age, yet, the presiding judge after a preliminary examination having found that she was a competent witness, no error of law is shown. Commonwealth v. Marshall, 211 Mass. 86, 90, 97 N. E. 632, and cases there collected. The questions asked by the district attorney in cross-examination of Teregno, who voluntarily became a witness in his own behalf, to the admission of which he excepted, assumed that illicit relations had existed between him and Mrs. Cammerota. But the entries in the defendant's ‘sort of diary,’ as well as other evidence already before the jury, left, if believed, no doubt of the fact, and the questions, which in substance were, ‘Aren't you man enough to take the blame for your relations with Maria yourself,’ were permissible within the discretion of the trial judge. It is sufficient that the legal rights of the defendant do not appear to have been invaded....