People v. Fratianno

Decision Date29 April 1955
Docket NumberCr. 5254
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James FRATIANNO, Dominic John Raspona and James B. Modica, Defendants, James Fratiano, Appellant.

Louis Thomas Hiller, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Jay L. Shavelson, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.

MOORE, Presiding Justice.

From a judgment convicting him of conspiracy in violation of section 182 of the Penal Code and of attempted extortion in violation of section 524 of the same code, appellant now demands a reversal on the grounds of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment, errors in rulings, erros in giving and refusing instructions, errors in the admission and exclusion of evidence.

The Evidence Sufficient.

Prior to the events about to be recited, one George Terry had incorporated the Terry Drilling Company and was its president and principal stockholder. The corporation owned 35 per cent interest in 800 acres of Tapo Canyon in Ventura County and was one of the general partners in the copartnership of 'Terry and Jansen' which held a lease from the Tapo Oil Company, a California corporation. The partnership acquired the lease from the last named corporation December 4, 1952 and soon thereafter began to drill. Oil was discovered February 16, 1953. The success of the undertaking was acclaimed in the press.

The witness Riddell was a friend of Terry and a stockholder in the drilling company. The defendant Raspona had been an acquaintance of Terry about four years. He operated a liquor store in Burbank. Terry visited the store and at one time in 1950 leased a drilling rig to Raspona, but had no other transactions with him. About February 20, 1953, pursuant to the merchant's request, Terry paid a visit to the liquor store when Raspona inquired of Terry whether the latter knew of any royalty for sale in the discovery well. Terry knew of a Mr. Lopspeich that had a two per cent overriding royalty that he might be interested in selling 'and I told him I would see him and let him know.' Raspona said he had some people with $5,000 that wanted to buy some royalty in a well.

After talking with Mr. Lopspeich, Terry discussed the matter with Raspona near his liquor store and told him that 'this royalty deal had already been sold and that there was nothing available up there.' Raspona repeated that some 'mighty fine people were interested with him.'

About July 9, 1953, Raspona and a party called 'Ray' stopped near Terry's office and Ray said, 'I want to talk to you, personally.' He said nothing more, but Raspona asked Terry to 'come to my place tomorrow.' Prior to such meeting Terry had no seen or conversed with Raspona since their conversation about February 20. Although, prior to the trial, Terry had heard the name Fratianno, he had met neither Fratianno or Modica.

The royalty sought by Raspona and his codefendants was a 'two per cent overriding royalty' in this Tapo 435 acres under lease to the partnership, worth $25,000. 1

Appellant appeared greatly concerned about acquiring the royalty. After the foregoing events, he telephoned Terry that he was 'Jimmy Fratianno' and wanted to see him. They did not meet.

Besides his friendship for Terry and his holdings in the Terry Drilling Company, Carl Riddell was an independent driller and knew Raspona and Modica. About April 27, 1953, Riddell, at their request, met Raspona and Modica at the latter's store. Raspona told Riddell he had a deal with Terry and that $5,000 had been put up by appellant's friends; that appellant had represented the people who had put up the money and Raspona stated that he felt appellant might think he (Raspona) had taken the money, and would not deliver any percentage or any deal he might have with Terry pecause it had suddenly become good. Raspona asked Riddell to tell appellant and Modica that he was not the kind of character that would take their money and not deliver. $5,000 was mentioned. Appellant stated that he was known as 'the Weasel' and asked Riddell (1) for assurances as to Raspona and (2) to arrange a meeting with Terry.

In further numerous conversations with Raspona and appellant, the former insisted that Riddell had promised to arrange a meeting for him and Terry; that Terry had been evasive about meeting him and appellant and that he was worried for fear that 'these people' means business and might take Terry out and 'shake him out of it.' Raspona told Riddell that 'These people would blow Terry's and my head off it I did not make contact with Terry and straighten the thing out; that they had a 'net work' all over the country and could fix things if anybody got into trouble and he said it would be lots of trouble if this contract wasn't made and this so-called deal completed.' He told Riddell that he 'had better arrange the meeting or they would blow his head off and, that if he resorted to the law, he would be killed.'

Riddell had another conversation with Raspona about August 6, 1953. Riddell had received a call from appellant. He informed Raspona of the call from appellant who told Riddell he allowed no one to talk about him. Riddell drove down to the liquor store and told Raspona of his telephonic call from appellant and that he wished to come down and straighten the thing out. He met Raspona in the liquor store and they sat in 'the car' while they visited. Riddell told Raspona that appellant had called him and said that he was going to blow Riddell's brains out; that he did not allow people to talk about him; that he had come to get Raspona to straighten appellant out.

When Riddell complained to Raspona of appellant's threats and appealed to Raspona to get him out of the situation, Raspona stated to Riddell that appellant was determined to go through with this deal; that no one could stop him and that 'these people' had a net work and even the police were fixed, and that 'the best thing to do would be to get Terry to go through with the deal.'

On August 7, 1953, appellant with profane and obscene language threatened to Riddell to 'blow Riddell's head off.'

On August 8, 1953, the police installed sound recording equipment onto Riddell's telephone. Commencing on the evening of August 9, the several tape recordings of the conversations of defendants were made. The substance of such conversations is convincing proof that defendants had a common understanding and were attempting in unison to terrorize Mr. Riddell and his family into action and to force him to induce Terry to assign to them an overriding royalty on the Tapo lease.

The following is taken from such conversations:

'Raspona: I'm just going to have to straighten this thing out, Carl. I don't want nothing happening. Your wife called yesterday, worried sick. I don't know why. I know they're not going to touch kids, for Christ's sake * * *

'Riddell: Why talk about kids * * * what am I supposed to do. This guy call--ed me up. He's splitting my head open. He's going to crucify me * * * I either have to have him arrested or go kill him * * * I know, but when they start threatening my family Don, what am I going to do? * * * here is this Fratianno. What does he want from me? What's his deal?

'Raspona: When we had that talk out there in that God damned liquor store * * * you said: 'I'll make a date. I'll get hold of him and we'll set down and talk like people.' Remember--your exact words, Carl? * * * Now, he feels that the least you could do, was to make a date and then when Ray went down there with me * * *

'Riddell: Who's this Ray?

'Raspona: Oh, well, Christ, he's that big guy, Carl. You know that big heavy-set kid * * * So, its just a case of this, Carl. The man gave me money because I told him he was going to get in on a good thing * * * the man stayed away and he didn't call. He comes back into town. He is ready to blow my head off because the deal is a success and I got his money in my pocket * * * Then he has to go out of town again and he comes back in, wondering why he's still not in. It's just like you * * * you want to put in five G's in that damned Tapo Canyon and I'm supposed to do it and you think you're in and then you're out, and you'd be God damned mad, too, and its just a simple thing.

'Riddell: I know nothing of this. Why should they keep threatening me? My wife is all upset. Helen is blowing a fuse * * * She's hollering now. She wants to talk to you.

'Mrs. Riddell: Don? * * * What's this all about?

'Raspona: * * * As far as Carl is concerned, honey, he's stepped on forty people's seat [sic] * * * If the man would only put himself out and get with this dirty son-of-a-b'ing George Terry * * * The deal is this, honey. I was supposed to put some money into this well before it even come in, with Terry on an override * * * It winds up that Terry double crosses me like he does other people, and he's double crossed other people, 'jillions' of times and * * * the wind-up is that this man figures his money is in the deal. He leaves town. His own business comes back and for Jesus Christ, his money is not in the deal. I called Terry. He don't call me back. He don't do nothing. He was going out to see that I got the override and everything else. So Carl comes out to meet these people and try to help me out and tell the people that the money has not been put up * * * that I don't have any override on it. They feel that I took the God damned money, bought the override, and that I'm getting the money and they're left out * * * I want to see what the hell happened and why my investment wasn't put in. They blamed it onto me, for Christ's sake * * * Hell, I made George Terry money. I gave him a couple of thousand for my little company, for Christ's sake. I gave him my Cadillac five or six hundred below wholesale. Carl, there's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Munoz v. Superior Court of Alameda Cnty.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 26, 2020
    ...conspiracy than the words of the alleged conspirators actually constituting the agreement itself? (See People v. Fratianno (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 610, 628–629, 282 P.2d 1002.)The petition for writ of mandate or prohibition is denied.We concur. JONES, P.J. SIMONS, J.1 Further statutory refere......
  • State v. Spica, 50289
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 8, 1965
    ...Wash.2d 357, 218 P.2d 329; Thompson v. State, Okl.Crim., 298 P.2d 464; People v. Feld, 305 N.Y. 322, 113 N.E.2d 440; People v. Fratianno, 132 Cal.App.2d 610, 282 P.2d 1002; Annotation 58 A.L.R.2d 1039-1040. It also appears that he does not object to the tape recordings containing statements......
  • People v. Bishop
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 21, 1988
    ...of a crime." (People v. Fiegelman (1939) 33 Cal.App.2d 100, 105, 91 P.2d 156; accord People v. Memro, supra; People v. Fratianno (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 610, 626, 282 P.2d 1002.) Defendant's contention that her conviction lacks the support of substantial evidence is to be examined according t......
  • People v. Massey
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 11, 1957
    ...of the parties, the interests of the alleged conspirators, and other circumstances." (Emphasis added.) And in People v. Fratianno, 132 Cal.App.2d 610, 624, 282 P.2d 1002, 1009, we find the following language: '* * * the purpose of the evidence in conspiracy cases is to establish a mental st......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT