People v. Randazzio

• Court: New York Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: HAIGHT
• Citation: 87 N.E. 112,194 N.Y. 147
• Decision Date: 26 January 1909
• Parties: PEOPLE v. RANDAZZIO.

194 N.Y. 147
87 N.E. 112

PEOPLE
v.
RANDAZZIO.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Jan. 26, 1909.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Trial Term, Cattaraugus County.

Salvatore Randazzio was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

[194 N.Y. 148]Thomas L. Newton, for appellant.

194 N.Y. 149]George W. Cole, for the People.
HAIGHT, J.

The indictment contains two counts. The first charges the defendant, Salvatore Randazzio, and one Silvia Barretta, jointly, with the crime of murder in the first degree, in striking, cutting, and killing with an ax and a heavy iron bar Pietro Randazzio, at the village of West Salamanca, Cattaraugus county, N. Y., willfully, feloniously, and from a deliberate and premeditated design to effect his death. The second count charges the same persons with the crime under the common-law forms.

On Sunday, January 19, 1908, the body of Pietro Randazzio was found in the Allegany river, about half a mile west and down the river from the place where he lived, in a box car in West Salamanca. The body was wrapped in heavy blankets, similar to those afterwards found in the car, securely [194 N.Y. 150]bound by means of a rope. It was dressed in shirt, underclothing, pants, and stockings, and the decedent's coat was thrown around his shoulders and held in place by means of the blankets. There was a contused wound upon the forehead, fracturing the bones of the head and face, and two or three incised wounds upon the neck and jaw several inches in length, one of which severed the jugular vein. Either the wound upon the head, breaking in the skull, or the cut upon the neck was sufficient to cause death.

The defendant Salvatore Randazzio, Silvia Barretta, and the decedent lived together in a box car which had been removed from the running gear and placed upon the ground near the main track of the Erie Railroad on Crawford street which crosses the track of the railroad and runs to the Allegany river 1,450 feet distant therefrom, and which street at that point was practically untraveled. These men were in the employ of the Erie Railroad under the charge of William Eggleston, the foreman of that section of the road. On Saturday evening, January 11th, at about 5 o'clock, he left these three men at the car and returned to his own home, which was near by. The next morning he saw the defendant Salvatore bringing water from a house near by, and as he got near to the car he set the pails of water down, went inside, got a shovel, and scraped over a patch of snow in the road. The night before there was snow on the ground, but it rained during the night and most of the snow had disappeared. About 11 o'clock of that day Eggleston went to the car and found the defendant sitting on a keg; he asked him where Pietro was, and he said that he had received a hurry-up letter from his brother-in-law to come to New York, and that he was going to Italy. He pointed at Pietro's trunk and said that he had left everything to him. Eggleston asked the defendant who was going to draw Pietro's pay, and he said: ‘A little man over at Salamanca.’ He was then asked if he had the number, and he said: ‘Yes, the little man had it.’ The defendant then said to him he might mark Pietro's time to his number. Eggleston told him [194 N.Y. 151]that that could not be done; that it was against the rules. The defendant said that ‘Pietro went on the 8 o'clock train the evening before.’ Shortly after Silvia came in. He was working that day, and had been out walking the track. After the discovery of the body a week later, it was found that the bunk in one corner of the car had been removed, and that there were numerous blood spots upon the side of the car and upon the ax that was found therein. Subsequently, tucked under a mattress of another bunk, was found a stove shaker, which was a heavy piece of iron. The decedent's boots, together with his trunk and other belongings, were found in the car, and the blankets with which the body was bound up were similar to the blankets used upon the other bunks in the car. After the body had been found, the defendant and Silvia Barretta were placed under arrest, and subsequently the defendant made a confession to the effect that he struck the decedent with the ax while he was in his bunk asleep, inflicting

[87 N.E. 114

the wounds found upon his neck, at the direction of Silvia, and that Silvia struck him over the head with the stove shaker, crushing in the skull and the bones of the head and face; that Silvia took from the neck of the decedent a little bag in which they found four $10 bills, of which Silvia kept two of the bills and gave the defendant the other two; that then they wrapped the blankets around the body, together with the decedent's coat, tied it up with a rope, drew it down the roadway to the river bank, and pushed it out into the water; that then they returned to the car and took the bed, which consisted of a large bag filled with hay, to the river, and threw it into the water. The evidence was such as to require the submission of the question of the defendant's guilt to the jury, and was ample to sustain the verdict rendered.

A number of exceptions were taken to the rulings of the court with reference to the admission of evidence, which point to no error, and we do not deem it necessary to make special reference to them here. The chief questions which we are called upon to consider pertain to the [194 N.Y. 152]admissibility of the confessions claimed to have been made by the defendant, and as to whether they were procured through the influence of fear produced by threats under the provisions of section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That section provides as follows: ‘A confession of a defendant, whether in the course of judicial proceedings or to a private person, can be given in evidence against him, unless made under the influence of fear produced by threats, or unless made upon a stipulation of the district attorney, that he shall not be prosecuted therefor; but is not sufficient to warrant his conviction, without additional proof that the crime charged has been committed.’ No claim is made on behalf of the defendant that any stipulation of the district attorney had been made to the effect that the defendant should not be prosecuted as an inducement for the defendant's making a confession. The contention is that threats were made under which the defendant, through fear, was induced to make the confessions. After the finding of the body, the sheriff and several officers went to the car and found the defendant and Barretta. They were both taken into custody and removed to Salamanca. At the time of making the arrest the defendant and Barretta were told that they were wanted to identify the body that had been found. There appears to have been quite a number of persons gathered at the car at the time the defendant was arrested, and while the officers were taking the defendant and Barretta to Salamanca, in crossing the bridge over the Allegany river, some one cried out, ‘They ought to take them and throw them into the river.’ One of the officers, however, said that it was Barretta, who, as they crossed the bridge, said to the officers, ‘Throw me in the river.’ After arriving at the morgue, the defendant at first recognized the body as that of Pietro, the decedent, but afterwards stated that he did not know. They were then taken to the police justice's office, and the defendant was questioned as to where he was working and as to where Pietro was. He answered that he was working at West Salamanca, and that Pietro had gone away; that he went away a week go. He [194 N.Y. 153]was then asked where he had gone, and he said, ‘To New York; that he took the train at Salamanca.’ The next morning one John Marsh, an Italian padrone living at Carrolton, arrived in Salamanca, and testified that he knew the defendant and the...