People v. Gaimari

• Decision Date: 06 October 1903
• Citation: 176 N.Y. 84,68 N.E. 112
• Parties: PEOPLE v. GAIMARI.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

176 N.Y. 84

68 N.E. 112

PEOPLE

v.GAIMARI.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 6, 1903.

Appeal from Court of General Sessions, New York County.

Carmine Gaimari was convicted of murder in the first degree and appeals. Affirmed.

Charles E. Le Barbier, for appellant.

William Travers Jerome, Dist. Atty. (Robert C. Taylor and Howard S. Gans, of counsel), for the People.

VANN. J.

At the time of the homicide the defendant lived with his wife in a double tenement house known as No. 56 Roosevelt street, in the city of New York, and Josephine Santa Petro, the deceased, lived with her husband in the same building. The defendant worked in Jersey City, and the deceased was janitress of the building where both resided. He was 31 years old, weighed 130 or 135 pounds, and was not quite as tall as the deceased, who was about 40 years of age, 5 feet and 6 inches in height, weighed from 175 to 180 pounds, and was a strong, robust, muscular woman. They were acquaintances, more or less intimate, and there was some evidence of jealousy of the deceased on the part of the defendant's wife and of threats made by the former that she would kill the defendant and his wife, and that these threats had been communicated to him. Maggie Santa Petro, a little daughter of the deceased, 12 years of age, testified that a few days before the homicide the defendant came up to the rooms occupied by her father and his family, and, knocking at the door, said he was the landlord, Mr. Golden, but the door was not opened, whereupon he broke in the window, ‘pulled out a revolver, and he pointed it in. My mother ran in the front-room door. He said, ‘I was going to leave you dead in Roosevelt street.’' Two days before the homicide, a precept issued by a local court, requiring the defendant forthwith to remove from his rooms at No. 56 Roosevelt street, or show cause before the court on the 7th of October, 1902, at 10 a. m., why possession of the premises should not be delivered to Barnard Golden, the landlord, was served upon the defendant, and was found upon his person immediately after the homicide. The homicide took place on the 6th of October, 1902, between 9 and 10 in the morning, at No. 56 Roosevelt street. The witnesses who saw the occurrence, in whole or in part, differ somewhat in their versions, so that a review of the case upon the merits, which is substantially the only duty presented by the record, requires an analysis of the evidence.

William Gibson, a seafaring man, was in front of No. 56 Roosevelt street, on the opposite sidewalk, between half past 9 and 10 o'clock on the morning of Monday, October 6, 1902. He saw three women standing in front of No. 56, when a man came out of the doorway, whom he identified as the defendant. The defendant ‘made a reach for a woman that was standing in the crowd, and as he did so he drew a revolver out of his hip pocket, and fired two shots at her. She was dodging around the other women, and started to run into the shoe store right next door to No. 56, and as she was going through the door into the place he fired three more. I never heard of the people before. I did not know that they were on earth. After the second three shots were fired at the woman as she went into the door of the cobbler's shop, I went across the street to the sidewalk where she was shot. I seen her lying in there, and I started back-lying in the shoemaker's shop, right by the casing at the windows, the cobbler's bench there. I seen blood on the side of her dress.’

Kate Looney, who lived at No. 56 Roosevelt street, was talking to Mrs. Petro as she was cleaning the bells by the front door when the defendant came downstairs, and said to the deceased, ‘You did this,’ and she said, ‘I didn't do it, the landlord did it.’ Thereupon the defendant caught her by the throat, and commenced to shove her. The witness thought he was fooling until she saw him pull a revolver out of his pocket and fire three shots, when she ran into the shoemaker's shop, followed by the deceased, who in turn was followed by the defendant. When the defendant went in, he fired another shot, and the witness observed nothing more except that she saw him throw away the revolver. ‘He was in the store when he chucked it away. He chucked it in the back of the store.’ The night before, this witness heard the defendant say to the deceased, as he passed by her at the front door, ‘This is your last night of living.’ She further testified that when the defendant ‘fired those shots at the housekeeper he was right up at her side; he had his hand on her when he fired them at her in the store.’ When sworn before the coroner she did not say that she saw the defendant throw away the revolver.

Angelina Granero lived at No. 56 Roosevelt street, and, going downstairs to pay her rent to Mrs. Petro, saw her cleaning the knobs of the bells by the front door. While she was engaged in paying her rent, the defendant came downstairs, and said to Mrs. Petro, ‘Give us the money.’ She replied: ‘No, I wasn't going to give you no money. If I've got to give you any money, call me to the court, and don't talk to me. Don't speak to me. Talk to my husband. I don't want you to be talking to me.’ He asked her for the money again, and she said: ‘Don't be doing me anything. If you do me anything I will call a policeman, and make you arrested.’ In the language of the witness: ‘From these words they started to be fighting,’ and, alarmed, she turned to go, when Mrs. Petro caught hold of her dress. She next heard three shots from behind her, the hold on her dress was relaxed, and she ran away, but, looking back, saw the defendant shoot again. By ‘fighting’ the witness may have meant quarreling, for, when asked if the parties were striking at each other, she answerer, ‘No, sir; fighting, talking.’

Louis Cairia testified that he was a shoemaker, and was at work in his shop in the front part of No. 56 Roosevelt street, at about 8 or 9 o'clock on the morning of the homicide. He heard a shot, and raising his head, saw the defendant pursuing the deceased, about three feet from her, and shooting at her ‘in front and in the back, anywhere she turned.’ He heard three shots fired outside, when he ran out of his shop and the deceased ran in, followed by the defendant with a pistol in his hand. After that the witness heard one or two shots inside. The defendant was close to Mrs. Petro as the witness looked up and saw the second and third shots. At this time he saw the defendant shoot at her in front, and when she turned he saw him shoot at her back.

Daniel A. Walsh, a collector, was walking down Roosevelt street on the morning in question shortly after half past 9 o'clock. When about opposite No. 56 he heard the report of a revolver, and, turning, saw a woman running from the hallway, followed by a man, whom he identified as the defendant, She was running from him, and he had his left hand on her right shoulder. He next heard two shots in quick succession, when she turned and went into the cobbler's shop, followed by the defendant, and after that he heard two more shots; making five in all. He went into the shop, and saw the woman with blood coming from her back and a wound in her abdomen. Her apron was burned with powder. He saw a man put his hand on defendant and hold him until he was turned over to the police. A few minutes later the witness picked up a revolver in the air shaft at the back part of the store. Each of the five chambers contained an empty shell, and the revolver was hot when he picked it up. It was identified by several witnesses as the one with which the shooting was done.

Three of these witnesses and two others testified that when the defendant was arrested right after the shooting he was taken before Mrs. Petro, who was still living. She was asked if he was the man who shot her. She could not speak, but nodded her head. In broken English the defendant denied that he did the shooting. The defendant was seized as he was ‘trying to get out’ of the shoe shop, and held until the arresting officer came and took him in custody. A watch, $15 or $16 in money, and the precept to dispossess, returnable the next day, were found upon his person. The officer asked him why he did it, and he said he did not do it. After the revolver was found, he was asked if it was his, and he said it was not.

The interne in charge of the ambulance found Mrs. Petro, at about 10 o'clock, lying on the floor of the cobbler's shop, still conscious, but suffering from shock. Her clothes were saturated with blood and burned in two places-one in the back, just behind the right shoulder, and the other in front, over the right groin. Beneath each burned spot there was a pistol shot wound in the body. She was taken to the hospital, and died in about 30 minutes.

The physician who made the autopsy found two pistol shot wounds-one in the back, about two inches to the right of the median line, above the right shoulder blade. The bullet which made that wound lodged in the muscles of the back. The other wound was in front, on the right side of the body, and the bullet, after penetrating the abdominal cavity, passed through the bladder, and was found in the muscles on the left side. It was of the same caliber as the revolver that was found right after the shooting, both being No. 32. The wound in the abdomen, with the internal hemorrhage resulting, was, in the opinion of the physician, the cause of death.

The defendant, when sworn in his own behalf, denied the occurrence testified to by the little girl Maggie in relation to his breaking into the room of the deceased with a revolver in his hand, and said that he never had a revolver in his possession. He also denied that he ever threatened to kill Mrs. Petro. He testified that on the morning in question he went downstairs to see the owner of the building, and found the deceased and another woman. He said, ‘Good morning,’ and as he was passing by Mrs. Petro she said, ‘Come here.’ As he...