People v. Barbato
Decision Date | 08 July 1930 |
Parties | PEOPLE v. BARBATO. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Joseph Barbato was convicted of murder in first degree, and he appeals.
Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Appeal from Bronx County Court.
Peter L. F. Sabbatino, David H. Slade, and Maxwell Slade, all of New York City, for appellant.
Charles B. McLaughlin, Dist. Atty., of New York City (Sol Boneparth, Israel J. P. Adlerman, and Herman J. Fliederblum, all of New York City, of counsel), for the People.
Julia Musso Quintieri was stangled to death in her apartment in the borough of The Bronx at some time late Saturday night, September 14, 1929, or early Sunday morning, September 15, 1929. The question is whether the jury was justified in finding from the competent evidence received on the trial that defendant committed the act of killing. The defense was an alibi. The people relied on the evidence of defendant's confessions to establish his guilt. The learned trial judge received the evidence of such confessions and left to the jury the question as to whether they were voluntary under Code of Criminal Procedure, § 395. He instructed the jury that they must acquit the defendant if they found that the confessions were the result of beatings or of fear produced by threats. The defendant testified that the confessions were extorted from him by threats and force and that he was under the influence of fear when he made them. The people's witnesses—police officers—denied that any threats or force were used, although defendant was detained by them without legal warrant until the alleged confessions were obtained—a practice condemned by this court in People v. Trybus, 219 N. Y. 18, 22,113 N. E. 538. If the confessions thus obtained were made voluntarily, their reception in evidence is not illegal as matter of law (Balbo v. People, 80 N. Y. 484), although the circumstance may be regarded as significant as bearing on the question of credibility.
Confessions thus obtained by police officers from persons accused of crime are often offered and almost as often repudiated by defendants when on trial on the ground that they were ‘made under the influence of fear produced by threats.’ The police officers invariably deny, as in this case, that threats or violence were used. The question then arises as to the admissibility of the confessions in evidence. The rule has recently been stated by this court with precision and care: People v. Weiner, 248 N. Y. 118, 122, 161 N. E. 441, 443.
When the evidence of the people meets the evidence of the defendants as oath against oath, with no corroboration on either side, a fair question of credibility is presented for the jury to decide. Rarely does the evidence on a criminal trial proceed beyond this point. When the evidence tends to show that the defendant's tale of threats or beating is false and that the confession was voluntary, as, for example, when no bruises are seen on the defendant's body and when with full opportunity he makes no prompt complaint to officials or friends, the trial judge should submit the question to the jury, even though the circumstances in which the confession is obtained may be suspicious. People v. Doran, 246 N. Y. 409, 159 N. E. 379. But when the weight of evidence indicates that the confession was made under the influence of fear produced by threats the judge should refuse to admit the statement. People v. Weiner, supra. The confession may have been made after the threats or to parties other than the coercing officers so as to present a question for the jury whether it was given under the influence of the threats (Reg. v. Rue, 13 Cox's Crim. Cas. 209; People v. Trybus, supra), or other combinations of circumstances may arise; but, speaking in generalities, the above statement of the rule will suffice for the present. Whether true or false, confessions obtained in violation of section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not sufficient to sustain a conviction.
A careful analysis of the evidence indicates that when defendant was taken into custody by the police officers at nine o'clock in the afternoon on Sunday, September 15, at Sunnydale farm near Newburgh, he asserted his innocence and said that he had left New York before the hour when the crime was committed; that he was taken to New York to the Fifty-Second precinct police station on Monday, September 16, at 12:05 or 12:10 a. m.; that the district attorney was there and questioned him; that he still asserted his innocence; that after three-quarters of an hour the district attorney departed leaving defendant in the hands of three police officers; that thereafter, about 6 o'clock in the morning of September 16, defendant wrote on a card the words, ‘I kill Julia Musso’; that about noon on September 16 a stenographic record was taken of an interview with defendant by an assistant district attorney at the station house in which he again said that he killed Julia Musso but refused or was unable to state why or how he killed her; that another stenographic record was made of an interview at the district attorney's office at 4:45 p. m. of the same day in which he said, ‘I can say I killed her because she tried to break up my home’ and
No confession was obtained between the time the district attorney left and six o'clock in the morning. Defendant testifies that one of the police officers struck him on the jaw and knocked him to the floor; that the other two pulled his hair and knocked him about with blackjacks, kicked him, cursed him, threatened to kill him, and made him write, ‘I kill Julia Musso,’ because they menaced him with further abuse if he refused; that he was still under the influence of fear when he made the later statements, so that he made no complaint to the assistant district attorney or the district attorney.
On Tuesday, September 17, he was arraigned before the magistrate in the Bronx Homicide Court. He then seems to have had a black eye or two black eyes, although the evidence on this point is not as conclusive as it might be. He claimed protection, saying that he was broken to pieces and could not talk. He was then committed to the Bronx county jail. On September 18 he complained of pain to the warden. He then had a black eye. The warden called Dr. Radin, the attending jail physician, to examine him. He was stripped. Dr. Radin testified as follows:
‘The Court: Witness indicates by placing his hand on the left temple.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stein v. People of State of New York Wissner v. People of State of New York Cooper v. People of State of New York
...is in no sense final, binding the accused only until reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States.' 25. See People v. Barbato, 254 N.Y. 170, 172 N.E. 458. 26. N.Y.Code Crim.Proc. § 618b; cf. Fed.Rules Crim.Proc., 46(b), 18 U.S.C.A. 27. Malinski v. People of State of New York, 324 U.S.......
-
People v. Estrialgo
...And, if following such unlawful arrest, he should confess his crime he may be convicted. (Balbo v. People, 80 N.Y. 484; People v. Barbato, 254 N.Y. 170, 172 N.E. 458; People v. Kylczek, 307 Ill. 150, 138 N.E. 275, 277; Driver v. State, 201 Md. 25, 92 A.2d 570, 573; State v. Raftery, 252 Mo.......
-
Stagemeyer v. State
...N.E. 906, 908, 85 A.L.R. 939; State v. Nagle, 326 Mo. 661, 32 S.W.(2d) 596; People v. Weiner, 248 N.Y. 118, 161 N.E. 441; People v. Barbato, 254 N.Y. 170, 172 N.E. 458; Garrett v. State, 52 Tex.Cr.R. 255, 106 389.See, also, Ridenour v. Lewis, 121 Neb. 823, 238 N.W. 745, 80 A.L.R. 119. In th......
-
Williams, In re
...illegal arrest per se does not invalidate an otherwise voluntary incriminating statement (Balbo v. People, 80 N.Y. 484; People v. Barbato, 254 N.Y. 170, 172 N.E. 458; Wong Sun v. United States, 9 Cir., 288 F.2d 366; Dailey v. United States, 5 Cir., 261 F.2d 870; Smith v. United States, 103 ......