People v. Santanella
Decision Date | 29 May 1978 |
Citation | 405 N.Y.S.2d 284,63 A.D.2d 744 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Ralph SANTANELLA, John Cappiello and Anthony Tamilio, Appellants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Harry H. Levine, Brooklyn, for appellant Santanella.
Jacob Evseroff, Brooklyn (Bennett M. Epstein, Brooklyn, of counsel), for appellant Cappiello.
Albert J. Brackley, Brooklyn, for appellant Tamilio.
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Michael Gore, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.
Before SHAPIRO, J. P., and COHALAN, MARGETT and O'CONNOR, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeals by defendants from three judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County, one as to each of them, all rendered June 24, 1977, convicting each of them of two counts of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Judgment as to defendant Tamilio affirmed.
Judgments as to defendants Santanella and Cappiello reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered as to them.
Defendants were each charged, inter alia, with two counts of murder in the second degree. The indictment alleged that on or about August 10, 1976 defendants, "having attempted to commit and committed the crimes of robbery and burglary, and in the course of and in furtherance of such crime(s) and of immediate flight therefrom," caused the deaths of Joseph and Angelina Tucci by means of a blunt instrument.
Each of the defendants employed a distinct strategy on his defense. Defendant Santanella did not testify in his own behalf. Upon summation Santanella's counsel conceded that his client had driven defendants Cappiello and Tamilio to the Tucci home on the morning of August 10, 1976. Santanella was, in fact, identified by a neighbor of Tuccis as one of those who was seen emerging from the alleyway of the Tucci home on the morning in question. Tamilio was also so identified. However, Santanella's counsel sought to portray his client as a "patsy" in this case. He contended that Santanella had no idea where he was taking Cappiello and Tamilio, that once at the Tucci home he took no part in the crime and that he had received no part of the proceeds therefrom. To the contrary, an acquaintance of Santanella testified at the trial that Santanella had admitted to him that he had participated in a robbery in which two people had been killed. However, Santanella disclaimed responsibility for the actual murders.
Defendant Cappiello made several statements to the police, the Assistant District Attorney and friends, which were admitted into evidence at the trial. Those statements clearly implicated Cappiello in the alleged robbery and burglary. Cappiello did not testify in his own behalf. Upon summation, his counsel conceded that Cappiello was guilty of the underlying felony. He, too, denied that his client had any knowledge that a murder would be committed and denied that his client had in any way participated in the murders.
Defendant Tamilio, who had also been identified as one of those who emerged from the alleyway of the Tucci home on the morning of August 10, 1976, knew Joseph Tucci. Tamilio's father and Mr. Tucci were business associates. Tamilio, testifying in his own behalf at the trial, conceded that he, Santanella and Cappiello had gone to the Tucci home on the morning of August 10. However, he stated that he was doing an errand for his father and denied that the crime was committed at that time. It was his contention that the Tuccis were alive at the time he was seen emerging from the alleyway and he presented several witnesses in an attempt to establish that claim. Upon summation, Tamilio's counsel argued that some time subsequent to the time his client left the Tucci home that morning, someone entered and committed the crimes for which defendants were indicted.
At the conclusion of the summations, the court charged the jury. As a part thereof, the court charged the affirmative defense to felony murder. The crime of felony murder is defined by subdivision 3 of section 125.25 of the Penal Law. After the definition the affirmative defense is set forth as follows:
The court's charge on this issue, was, in pertinent part, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Di Nicolantonio
...the error alleged on appeal ( see, e.g., People v. Smalls, 55 N.Y.2d 407, 417, 449 N.Y.S.2d 696, 434 N.E.2d 1063; People v. Santanella, 63 A.D.2d 744, 746-747, 405 N.Y.S.2d 284, cert. denied sub nom. Tamilio v. New York, 443 U.S. 912, 99 S.Ct. 3102, 61 L.Ed.2d Significantly, there is no ind......
-
People v. Cruz
...50 N.Y.2d 922, 431 N.Y.S.2d 452, 409 N.E.2d 926, affg. 66 A.D.2d 866, 411 N.Y.S.2d 872 ) and other courts (see, People v. Santanella, 63 A.D.2d 744, 405 N.Y.S.2d 284, lv. denied sub nom. People v. Tamilio, 45 N.Y.2d 784, 409 N.Y.S.2d 1042, 381 N.E.2d 177, cert. denied sub nom. Tamilio v. Ne......
-
Williams v. Smith
...can be "established by the prosecution's own evidence, particularly by... statements made by... defendants." People v. Santanella, 405 N.Y.S.2d 284, 287 (2d Dep't 1978), cert. denied sub nom Tamilio v. New York, 443 U.S. 912 (1979). On a defendant's request, a trial court must instruct the ......
-
Cappiello v. Hoke, CV 87-0831.
...incorrect instruction as to an affirmative defense to the felony murder charge. N.Y.Penal Law Section 125.25(3). People v. Santanella, 63 A.D.2d 744, 405 N.Y.S.2d 284 (1978).2 On this appeal, Cappiello, represented by new counsel, had argued that his incriminating statements should have bee......