People v. Perri

Decision Date17 November 1942
Docket NumberNo. 26907.,26907.
Citation381 Ill. 244,44 N.E.2d 857
PartiesPEOPLE v. PERRI.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; John A. Sbarbaro, Judge.

Nicoli Perri was convicted of murder, and he brings error.

Judgment affirmed.

James M. Burke, of Chicago, for appellant.

George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, and Melvin S. Rembe, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

MURPHY, Justice.

In a trial in the criminal court of Cook county, without a jury, plaintiff in error, Nicoli Perri, was found guilty of the murder of Carmela Rinaldi and committed to the Illinois State Penitentiary for fourteen years. He prosecutes this writ of error and as grounds for reversal urges that the evidence does not establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that the court erred in refusing competent evidence offered by him and that incompetent evidence was admitted on behalf of the State.

The deceased, Rinaldi, and his partner, John Scorza, operated a grocery, delicatessen and restaurant at 763 South State street, Chicago. The dimensions of the room in which they conducted their business were 16 by 80 feet. It was divided into two rooms by a partition 30 feet from the front. The grocery and delicatessen business was conducted in the front room and the rear room was used to serve sandwiches and light lunches. The front room contained shelving, counters and a meat case.

Plaintiff in error came to the United States from Italy in 1931. In 1933 he entered the employment of the city of Chicago as a street sweeper and continued in that service until the day of the fatal shooting April 25, 1941. He had known Rinaldi and Scorza for several years prior to the homicide and kept his street-sweeper's uniform and other sweeper's paraphernalia in a shed to the rear of their store. At the time of the shooting, he had a radio and a bag containing a pistol and clothing in the back room of the store. He purchased grocery articles from the partnership and had some of his meals in their restaurant and was a frequent caller at the store.

On April 24, 1941, after eating his lunch, he engaged in a card game with deceased and Pasquale Farradi. A dispute arose in a short time and the game ended. Plaintiff in error charged Rinaldi with taking a nickel more than was coming to him from the game. Plaintiff in error left the store and returned for breakfast early the next morning. Rinaldi was not present at that time. A few minutes after 12 o'clock, noon, April 25, plaintiff in error returned to the store for his lunch. There is evidence which indicates that the argument of the night before was renewed. Rinaldi was shot about 12:30 and the evidence describing the events which preceded the shooting is in conflict. Plaintiff in error admits the homicide but claims it occurred in lawful self-defense.

John Scorza testified that when plaintiff in error entered the store, he was in the back room and that Rinaldi, Tom Stone and Dean Paron were present. He further testified that the plaintiff in error took his radio from the shelf and placed it in a shopping bag, stating he would not leave it there for Rinaldi, that later he heard plaintiff in error and Rinaldi in a heated argument in the front room, saying to each other in Italian ‘You no good, you no good;’ that he then heard five shots and saw plaintiff in error run out the back door. Scorza stated he then went to the front room and found Rinaldi behind a counter near the wall, shot and bleeding profusely; that no one except plaintiff in error and Rinaldi were in the front room at the time of the shooting, and at the time of the shooting plaintiff in error was on the opposite side of the counter from Rinaldi. He testified he found a butcher knife on the floor behind the counter near Rinaldi and that the knife was one customarily kept on the counter for cutting meat.

Tom Stone testified he was in the rear room eating his lunch when the shooting occurred; that he heard the argument between Rinaldi and plaintiff in error in the front room; that plaintiff in error went to the back room, obtained his gun and began shooting Rinaldi; that he heard about five shots and saw Rinaldi just before the shooting commenced and that the only thing Rinaldi had in either hand was his smoking pipe; that after the shooting plaintiff in error left the building through the back door carrying the pistol. He admitted on cross-examination that he had testified at the coroner's inquest where he stated that when he heard the shots he thought they were explosions of firecrackers. On examination by the court, the witness stated that at first he thought the shots were explosions of firecrackers and that he did not see plaintiff in error fire the first two or three shots, that he did not actually see plaintiff in error get the gun from the rear room but he saw plaintiff in error go behind the partition but did not see the gun until he commenced shooting.

Dean Paron testified he was in the rear room eating his lunch when the shooting occurred and plaintiff in error came in dressed in his white street-cleaner's uniform and talked in Italian with Rinaldi and Scorza; that their conversation was loud and after a time Scorza and plaintiff in error went out the back door and when they returned in a few minutes plaintiff in error picked up a radio and put it in a bag; that plaintiff in error then went to the front where Rinaldi was and a little later three shots were fired and plaintiff in error went out the back door carrying what looked like a gun.Plaintiff in error testified that when he returned to the store at noon, both Rinaldi and Scorza were in the front room, that the old argument was renewed and that he told them he was going to get out of their way, that he then went to the rear room, placed his clothing and radio in a bag and when he returned to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • In re Cutty's-Gurnee, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 88 B 14750
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 7 Agosto 1991
    ... ... YOUR PARTNER TO YOU OF ALL OF HIS RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IN THESE PROPERTIES IN ORDER THAT WE MIGHT HAVE AN ASSET THAT WOULD HAVE VALUE TO OUR PEOPLE ...         Foster came up with the proposal under which Great American would (1) purchase the installment contracts held by the debtor ... ...
  • State v. Schoolcraft
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 25 Julio 1990
    ...the discretion to make the determination on admissibility. E.g., State v. Butler, 207 Conn. 619, 543 A.2d 270 (1988); People v. Perri, 381 Ill. 244, 44 N.E.2d 857 (1942); People v. Malone, 180 Mich.App. 347, 447 N.W.2d 157 (1989); State v. Marco, 220 Neb. 96, 368 N.W.2d 470 (1985); State v.......
  • Eizerman v. Behn
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 21 Febrero 1956
    ...the testimony of the witness Sheffey given on the stand, and consequently were properly admissible for impeachment. People v. Perri, 381 Ill. 244, 44 N.E.2d 857. It is a well-settled rule of law that evidence which is competent for one purpose does not become incompetent because the jury mi......
  • People v. Ellis
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 10 Agosto 1976
    ...the alleged conversation; secondly, the witness must be asked whether he made a certain contrary statement at that time. People v. Perri, 381 Ill. 244, 44 N.E.2d 857; People v. Byers, 11 Ill.App.3d 277, 296 N.E.2d In the instant case, Harris was never questioned about any conversation he ha......
  • 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