People v. Folignos

• Decision Date: 08 October 1926
• Docket Number: No. 17273.,17273.
• Citation: 153 N.E. 373,322 Ill. 304
• Parties: PEOPLE v. FOLIGNOS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

322 Ill. 304
153 N.E. 373

PEOPLE
v.
FOLIGNOS.

No. 17273.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 16, 1926.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 8, 1926.

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; William B. Brothers, Judge.

James Folignos was convicted of threatening by written communication to kill another or some member of such other's family, and to destroy his property, with intent to extort money, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

[322 Ill. 305]Thomas A. Green and Charles P. R. Macaulay, both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., Robert E.

[153 N.E. 374]

Crowe, State's Atty., of Chicago, and Virgil L. Blanding, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson and Henry T. Chase, Jr., both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

THOMPSON, J.

Plaintiff in error, James Folignos, was convicted in the criminal court of Cook county of the crime of threatening, by written communication, to kill Valentino Parise or some [322 Ill. 306]member of his family and to destroy the property of Parise, with intent thereby to extort money from Parise, and was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary. He prosecutes this writ of error to reverse the judgment for the reasons (1) that the indictment is insufficient; (2) that the act under which the prosecution is brought is unconstitutional; and (3) that improper evidence was admitted on behalf of the prosecution.

A trial was had upon the fourth and sixth counts of the indictment, and a general verdict of guilty was returned. The fourth count charged:

That plaintiff in error and others ‘did by written communications maliciously and willfully threaten to wound, maim, kill, and murder another person, to wit, one Walentino Parise, which said written communications are in the Italian language and in words and figures and letters as follows, to wit [photograph of letters in Italian language], and the said written communications translated into the English language are, in substance, as follows, to wit:

“Dirty villain that you are. Remember that this is a small warning that we have given you to let you understand that we are talking seriously. Therefore if you wish to communicate to accommodate this affair seek friends who are able to accommodate this affair, otherwise we will throw to earth your property and then you will be killed with all your family and without pity. Black Hand.'

“Dirty villain that you are. Let us know if you think that you are to fool us you are thinking about. Therefore if you wish to communicate yourself and not send your son otherwise remember we are at the point of doing something right away and do not sleep otherwise shortly your destruction will commence of all your family. Black Hand.'

—with intent thereby to extort from him, the said Valentino Parise, a large sum of money.'

The sixth count is the same, except that it includes Valentino's son, Gene Parise, as one of the persons threatened.

It is not alleged in either count that Valentino Parise or Gene Parise could read and understand the Italian language,[322 Ill. 307]and it is contended by plaintiff in error that this was an essential averment. We do not agree with this contention. The indictment is in the language of the statute, and it sets out in both Italian and English the contents of the letters which it is charged the accused sent to the persons threatened. He was fully informed of the charge against him, and had a full opportunity to prepare his defense. The indictment is sufficient. Glover v. People, 204 Ill. 170, 68 N. E. 464.

It is also contended that it was not proven on the trial that the persons threatened could read or understand the letters. With this we do not agree. Gene Parise testified that he could read and understand the Italian language, that he received the two letters, that he opened them and read them, and that he communicated their contents to his father.

[3][4] The prosecution in this case is under section 93a of the Criminal Code (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1925, c. 38, § 241), added by an Act approved May 9, 1901 (Laws 1901, p. 144). It is contended that this section is void, for the reason that it amends section 93 without inserting at length in the new act the section amended, as...