People v. Reno

• Decision Date: 16 February 1927
• Docket Number: No. 17685.,17685.
• Citation: 155 N.E. 329,324 Ill. 484
• Parties: PEOPLE v. RENO.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

324 Ill. 484

155 N.E. 329

PEOPLE

v.RENO.

No. 17685.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 16, 1927.

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Harry B. Miller, Judge.

Ralph Reno was convicted of murder, and he brings error.

Reversed and remanded.

William R. McCabe, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., Robert E. Crowe, State's Atty., of Chicago, and Merrill F. Wehmhoff, of Decatur (Edward E. Wilson, Clarence E. Nelson and Harold Levy, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

HEARD, J.

Plaintiff in error, Ralph Reno, was indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death in the criminal court of Cook county for the murder of Mary Palombizio. He prosecutes this writ of error to review the judgment of the criminal court.

On March 23, 1925, deceased and her husband lived in the rear apartment on the third floor of a three-story apartment building at 1345 West Taylor street, Chicago. Marie Pacifico, with her husband, children, and a boarder, lived in the front apartment on the same floor. The building, on the south side of Taylor street, had a front entrance, and a side entrance which was on the west side of the building. Taylor street runs east and west. Plaintiff in error and his wife lived in the rear apartment of the first floor of the same building for a considerable time, but removed therefrom in June or July previous, and on the day in question they were residing at 1604 Prairie avenue, in a different part of the city. On the morning in question Mrs. Palombizio and her husband, Edward, were found dead in their apartment by police officers. Mrs. Palombizio was found upon the floor in the rear bedroom, shot through the head. Her clothes were partly torn from her body and an ordinary pen was sticking in her stomach. Her husband was found lying in the bathtub in the bathroom, also dead from a bullet wound. There was no eyewitness to the killing and the evidence produced upon the trial was purely circumstantial.

[1] It is contended by plaintiff in error that the state's attorney was guilty of prejudicial misconduct in his argumentto the jury. We have examined the abstract, which is the pleading of plaintiff in error, with care, and we do not find that any remarks of any counsel were preserved therein. People v. Adams, 289 Ill. 339, 124 N. E. 575.

[2] It is next contended that the court erred in admitting in evidence a bullet found in the bathroom where Palombizio had been shot to death. This bullet was found at least 12 hours after the murder by a witness who had previously inspected the bathroom at 9 o'clock in the morning and at noon and had then found nothing. There is no evidence as to how long the bullet had been there or that it was in any way connected with Reno or the murder. To render this bullet competent as evidence it should have been connected in some way with Reno, or shown to have had some connection with the killing of deceased or her husband.

[3] Marie Pacifico testified that on the morning of March 23, 1925, about 6 o'clock, she arose from her bed and went into her kitchen; that she started to light a fire and as she was doing so she heard a rap on the door; that she asked who was there, and, not getting any response, went to the door; that she unlocked it, and as she opened the door a man, whom she identified as plaintiff in error, stuck a revolver against her breast and fired. The state introduced in evidence a bullet claimed to have been taken from her body, and it is contended by plaintiff in error that the introduction of this evidence was erroneous because it was proof of a separate and distinct crime. Antoinette Tursi, a witness for the people, residing in the rear flat on the second floor at 1345 West Taylor street, testified that at about half past 5 on the morning of March 23, 1925, she got up and went out to the grocery store; that as she did so she saw a man standing near the gangway; that she went to the store and got back about 10 minutes to 6; that she then saw a man go through the alley; that she went upstairs, prepared breakfast and lunch for her husband, and was going back to bed when she heard shots fired and a woman ‘holler’; that she then heard two more shots; that after about 5 or 10 minutes she heard one shot, which came from the hall; that she heard some one going down stairs; that she opened a window and saw a man going through the alley; that she did not know the man she saw. The evidence of this witness tends to show that the attack made upon Mrs. Pacifico was made within a very few minutes after the murder of the Palombizios, and the evidence tends to show that both offenses were committed by the same person. The evidence of Mrs. Pacifico, when taken in connection with that of Mrs. Tursi, tended to show the presence of plaintiff in error, armed with a deadly weapon, near the place of the murder within a very few minutes after its commission, and it was therefore competent as tending to prove his guilt.

In People v. Jennings, 252 Ill. 534, 96 N. E. 1077,37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 778, it is said:

‘The general rule is, that evidence of a distinct substantive offense cannot be admitted in support of another offense. Farris v. People, 129 Ill. 521 [21 N. E. 821,4 L. R. A. 582, 16 Am. St. Rep. 283];Addison v. People, 193 Ill. 405 [62 N. E. 235];People v. Cleminson, 250 Ill. 135 [95 N. E. 157]. But to this rule there are several well known exceptions. If evidence is admissible on other general grounds it is no objection to its admission that it discloses other offenses, even though they are the subject of indictment. * * * One of the well known exceptions to the settled rule as to the admission of evidence as to collateral crimes is, when evidence of an extraneous crime tends to identify the accused as the perpetrator of the crime charged. 6 Ency. of Evidence, 677.’

[4] It is claimed by plaintiff in error that the court erred in permitting the state's attorney, over objection, to introduce in evidence a cap claimed to be Reno's. A police officer testified that he went to Reno's home on March 24, 1925, and found a gray cap in his room. The cap was taken by him and was offered and admitted in evidence over objections. Mrs. Tursi testified that the man she saw on the morning of March 23, 1925, wore a dark-brown suit and a gray cap. On cross-examination she admitted that she made a signed statement to a captain of police shortly after the crime and that in her statement she stated with reference to the person whom she had seen, ‘I cannot state how he was dressed; he was dressed in old clothes; he had an overcoat on.’ Mrs. Pacifico testified that the person who shot her wore a brown overcoat and a gray cap. Richard Barry, a police sergeant, testified that he saw Mrs. Pacifico and talked with her about 7 o'clock in the morning of March 23, 1925, and that she told him that the man who shot her wore a gray overcoat and a brown hat. James Quirk, another police officer, testified that at the hospital, between 6:30 and 6:40 in the morning, she said that the man had on old working clothes. While the cap offered in evidence was not identified as the cap which was worn by the man who did the shooting, plaintiff in error as a witness identified the cap as one belonging to him. Its admission in evidence was not prejudicial error.

It is contended by plaintiff in error that the evidence was not sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He had been an intimate friend of the Palombizios for a considerable time, and when on January 1, 1925, their infant child was christened he was asked to be its godfather, in which capacity he served at the christening. This, the witnesses say, is considered a great honor among Italians. After the ceremony, at noon, a party of friends went to the Palombizio home, where several hours were spent in conversation, dancing, eating, and drinking wine, and all went merrily until between 7 and 8 o'clock, by which time some of the party were in a state of partial intoxication. At that time Ralph Palombizio, who was at that time living with his brother Edward, said to plaintiff in error, ‘Mr. Reno, your wife is going to leave you.’ Reno asked his wife if it was true, and she said no; that it was a lie. Reno said that he wanted the thing proved. Ralph Palombizio said, ‘I will prove it’; and they went out of the room and to the Pacifico flat, where ...