People v. Manganaro

Decision Date18 April 1916
Citation218 N.Y. 9,112 N.E. 436
PartiesPEOPLE v. MANGANARO.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Supreme Court, Trial Term, Erie County.

Antonino Manganaro was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Reversed.

Cardozo and Seabury, JJ., dissenting.Horace O. Lanza, of Buffalo, for appellant.

Wesley C. Dudley, Dist. Atty., of Buffalo (Guy B. Moore, of Buffalo, of counsel), for the People.

COLLIN, J.

The defendant was indicted and tried for the killing of his wife, and the jury found a verdict of murder in the first degree, as charged in the indictment. We are constrained by the reasons which this opinion will state to reverse the judgment of conviction.

On the 10th day of March, 1915, the defendant killed his wife, Josephine Manganaro, at the city of Buffalo, by stabbing her with a knife or dagger which had been formed from a mechanic's file. The direct proof of the killing was his statement, of such effect, contained in a confession made by him on the 11th day of March, which was received in evidence and was not contradicted upon the trial. The defense was insanity, in the form of melancholia with frenzy, and substantial evidence in support of it was received. The trial justice by a charge, correct, impartial, and satisfactory to the counsel for the parties, submitted to the jury the evidence relating to the mental condition of the defendant at the time of the killing, and instructed them in the law involved in the entire evidence and case.

The trial court erred, however, in receiving in evidence a certain writing which upon the trial was denominated the last will and testament of the defendant. The writing was offered by the counsel for the people, and was received in rebuttal of the evidence introduced in behalf of the defendant. The direct evidence in behalf of the people, stated briefly and with sufficient accuracy and comprehensiveness, related to the identity, the condition of the body, and the cause of and deliberation and premeditation therein and diliberation and premeditation therin on the part of the defendant. The direct evidence in behalf of the defendant related to the conduct of the deceased through several months prior to March 10, 1915, and the relations between the defendant and the deceased existing prior to and at the time of the killing, and the mental condition of the defendant at that time. In rebuttal the writing in question was received in evidence, under the adequate objection and an exception to the ruling of the court by the defendant, as evidence bearing on the question of the sanity or insanity of the defendant at that time. It was in the Italian language and the translation of it read to the court was:

‘Louis from poison is about to dissolve me. My last wish is to recommend my children. You will be the father. I give them to you. Don't give any news to my family I beg you. Good-bye forever. Antonino Manganaro.’

Upon the envelope containing it was written in the English language:

‘This is last my will to Louise Mandarino, 25 Trenton Avenue, City.’

No evidence had been admitted or presented that the name at the end of the writing, or any part of the writing, was written by the defendant or by another at his direction or suggestion, or that he could write or read writing in any language. The confession of the defendant, which was detailed and circumstantial concerning his acts prior to, attendant upon, and subsequent to, the killing, did not mention the writing or suggest its existence. The justification for its reception in evidence, if it exists, must be found in circumstances and the writing itself. The evidence had disclosed to the court before it was received, through the cross-examination of a police officer, a witness in behalf of the people, that it was found on ‘the dresser’ in the bedroom of the defendant and the deceased between 10 and 11 o'clock in the forenoon of Thursday, the day next after the homicide. It had further disclosed that on the Friday last prior, the deceased, at the direction of the defendant, had left the two rooms in which they and their three young children lived. The deceased returned to them for the first time thereafter in the evening of the next Wednesday, a few hours before she was killed. The three children had been received by a charitable institution on the Tuesday just before. Subsequent to the removal of the children, and prior to the return of the deceased with the defendant, he was the only person living in the rooms. The defendant and the deceased remained in the rooms until the killing, at about 9:30 o'clock in the evening. The defendant remained there with the body until about 7 o'clock in the next morning, when he locked the rooms and went to the hospital, on account of self-inflicted injuries. He within the three months last prior to the homicide had, on two or more occasions, appealed to or consulted Louis A. Mandarino, who was his brother-in-law, concerning the acts and conduct of the deceased. The counsel for the people asserts, erroneously, however, that in those circumstances and the writing proof existed that the instrument was written by the defendant.

[1][2][3] The question of the admissibility of the writing in evidence was one for the trial justice to decide. Under the evidence and the defense, the writing was not competent evidence unless it was written by the defendant, and written, as stated by the counsel for the people, ‘shortly before or shortly after the homicide.’ The trial justice, in reaching his decision, was bound by the relevant rules of evidence and law. It was not admissible unless and until sufficient evidence had been presented, either direct or circumstantial, to legitimately satisfy him that the defendant was its author. It is a fundamental rule that, in general, all private writings must be proved to be genuine before they are admissible in evidence. The genuineness may be proved by indirect or circumstantial evidence the same as many other facts; but the circumstantial evidence, in the present case, and as a general rule, must be of such a force and character that defendant's authorship of the writing can be legitimately deduced from it. It must, with reasonable and natural certainty and precision, compel the conclusion that defendant wrote the document, and exclude the conclusion that it was the product of another. It must force or induce the mind to pass beyond a suspicion or conjecture that the defendant was the author. Suspicion is not proof, nor conjecture, evidence, upon which courts can act in determining the rights of parties. The writing was not found in the possession of the defendant. The evidence does not prove when or how or by whom it was placed upon the dresser. Neither the fact that the name of the defendant was written at its end, nor the fact that it was found in the room which the defendant had occupied, created the presumption that he was its author. The proof did not authenticate it, and its admission in evidence was error. People v. Corey, 148 N. Y. 476, 42 N. E. 1066;O'Connor Mining & Nanfg. Co. v. Dickson, 112 Ala. 304, 20 South. 413;Myrick v. United States, 219 Fed. 1, 134 C. C. A. 619;Palmer v. Manning, 4 Denio, 131;Mann v. Forein, 166 Ill. 446, 46 N. E. 1119;Sweeney v. Oil & Gas Co., 130 Pa. 193, 18 Atl. 612.

[4] We have already stated that the writing was admitted by the court in rebuttal of defendant's evidence, as evidence upon the question of the sanity or insanity of the defendant. It, therefore, bore upon the paramount issue...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • People v. Myers
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • August 19, 2011
    ...People v. Murray, 122 A.D.2d 81, 82, 504 N.Y.S.2d 228, lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 916, 508 N.Y.S.2d 1036, 501 N.E.2d 609; see People v. Manganaro, 218 N.Y. 9, 13, 112 N.E. 436; Thomas, 272 A.D.2d at 893, 708 N.Y.S.2d 775). Although the victim testified that the letters were not in defendant's han......
  • Shaw v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • February 17, 1943
    ... ... power and authority to provide by legislation, not only for ... the protection of the health, morals, and safety of the ... people, but for the common good, as involved in the ... well-being, peace, and prosperity of its people ...          3. The ... Oklahoma ... by the appellant." ...          In the ... case of People v. Manganaro, 218 N.Y. 9, 112 N.E ... 436, 438, the court, in discussing a confession apparently ... written and signed by defendant and found in his room ... ...
  • Gardner v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • April 4, 1921
    ... ... 1912 ... C. 230; State v. Asbell (Kans.) 46 P. 770; ... Bryant v. State (Ala.) 23 So. 40; State v ... Mullins (Mont.) 173 P. 788; People v. Lapp ... (Ill.) 118 N.E. 416. It must be entirely satisfactory ... and of such significance as to produce conviction beyond ... reasonable ... 923. Suspicion is no proof nor ... conjecture evidence upon which courts can act in determining ... rights of parties. People v. Manganaro, 112 N.E ... 436; Horn v. State, 12 Wyo. 157. The circumstances ... must be of such a character that they cannot be true and the ... defendant ... ...
  • People v. Ferguson
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 11, 1993
    ...once made, could be easily banished from the jurors' thoughts (see, People v. Levan, 295 N.Y. 26, 36, 64 N.E.2d 341; People v. Manganaro, 218 N.Y. 9, 17, 112 N.E. 436). Although in many instances a prompt and specific curative instruction suffices to alleviate the harm done by an improper s......
  • 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