Saienni v. State
| Decision Date | 11 September 1975 |
| Parties | Peter Anthony SAIENNI, Jr., Defendant below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff below, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
Upon appeal from Superior Court. Affirmed.
Arlen B. Mekler, Asst. Public Defender, Wilmington, for defendant below, appellant.
Raymond J. Otlowski, Deputy Atty. Gen. Wilmington, for plaintiff below, appellee.
Before HERRMANN, C.J., and DUFFY and McNEILLY, JJ.
Defendant appeals from jury convictions in the Superior Court for attempted murder, attempted kidnapping, conspiracy, and criminal solicitation. Eight grounds for reversal are argued and will be considered Seriatim.
On October 13, 1973 defendant and the alleged victim were married. During the next five weeks a bizarre plan of 'murder for hire' evolved leading to the convictions from which defendant appeals.
Three days after their marriage defendant insured his wife's life for $75,000. The policy provided for double indemnity in the event of accidental death and named defendant as primary beneficiary. At the time, defendant worked in Wilmington, lived alone in New Castle, Delaware, and visited his wife at her home near Marion Station, Maryland, one night during the week and on weekends.
A few days after issuance of the insurance policy, defendant visited Franklin Lloyd, a long time friend and convicted felon (also an active police informer but unknown as such by defendant). During the visit, Lloyd was asked by defendant if he was interested in making some money. He replied in the affirmative, but no details were discussed as to how the money was to be made until a later meeting took place in New Castle. At that meeting the plan was outlined and a diagram was drawn by defendant of the area in Maryland where the murder was to take place. The victim was to be a female (not then identified as defendant's wife); she was to be abducted from her home as she entered her automobile at a prearranged time; she was to be rendered unconscious and run over twice as she lay in the road some distance from her home (her automobile meanwhile to be wrecked); the murder was to take place within three or four weeks of the original meeting; Lloyd and his accomplice were to be paid $10,000. The reason given for the crimes was that defendant's gang had a contract to kill this unidentified female.
It was not until after a trip to Maryland, where defendant pointed out the entire physical layout and discussed step by step how the murder was to be accomplished, that Lloyd realized defendant was serious. Without further delay he relayed this information to the Delaware State Police who instructed him to continue collecting information and to introduce an undercover police agent to defendant as a likely accomplice. Lloyd followed instructions, and Trooper English of the Maryland State Police, wired with a recorder, became Lloyd's supposed accomplice and defendant's confidant. Defendant, Lloyd, and English, at meetings in Delaware and Maryland, discussed and rehearsed the murder in great detail. Finally, on schedule, following pre-arranged signals given by the would-be abductors to defendant, the victim-to-be walked from her home into the arms of Trooper English and her brother, who had been substituted for Lloyd. Defendant was arrested, one of the cars to which he had access to in his work was searched at the scene, and simultaneously his apartment in New Castle was searched by officers of the Delaware State Police.
Defendant argues that he cannot be guilty of conspiracy with an established police informer and an undercover agent who had no intention of committing the crime. We find no merit to this argument, which is controlled by 11 Del.C. § 523(2):
'It is no defense to a prosecution for criminal conspiracy that, because of irresponsibility or other legal incapacity or exemption, or because of unawareness of the criminal nature of the agreement or the conduct contemplated or of the defendant's criminal purpose, or because of other factors precluding the mental state required for commission of the conspiracy or the crime contemplated, one or more of the defendant's co-conspirators could not be guilty of the conspiracy of the crime contemplated.'
The commentary on § 523 is enlightening:
See the Commentary to the Model Penal Code #5.04 (Tent. Draft No. 10, 1960), and Wilson v. State, Del.Supr., 305 A.2d 312 (1973).
Defendant argues that mere preparation and impossibility of success defeat the charges of attempted murder and kidnapping.
This argument is without merit and is controlled by 11 Del.C. § 531:
'A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if he:
(1) Intentionally engages in conduct which would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as he believes them to be; or
(2) Intentionally does or omits to do anything which, under the circumstances as he believes them to be, is a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime.'
The record clearly shows that defendant intended, to commit the crimes charged and that he did all he planned to do up to the very moment of execution of his plan; he procured insurance, drew a diagram of the area where he wanted the crime committed, made contract to kill, gave detailed instructions and directed rehearsals, and started sequence of events which occurred as scheduled.
Defendant argues that his activities in Maryland should not have been used against him in Delaware.
11 Del.C. § 204 provides in its pertinent part as follows:
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section a person may be convicted under the law of Delaware of an offense committed by his own conduct or by the conduct of another for which he is legally accountable if:
(a) Either the conduct or the result which is an element of the offense occurs within Delaware; or
(b) Conduct occurring outside the State is sufficient under Delaware law to constitute a conspiracy to commit an offense within the State and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurs within the State; or
(c) Conduct occurring within the State establishes complicity in the commission of, or an attempt, solicitation, or conspiracy to commit, an offense in another jurisdiction which also is an offense under the law of Delaware;
The commentary to § 204 is noteworthy:
'This section makes the Criminal Code applicable to criminal conduct and results which occur in Delaware, to conspiracies conceived outside the State but evidenced by an overt act within the State, to conduct within the State leading to an offense in another jurisdiction which is also an offense in Delaware, to a criminal omission to perform an act required by Delaware law and to any out-of-state conduct which is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Daniel B.
...of [$ 5000]" and expressed that he was " ‘absolutely, positively, 100 percent sure’ " he wanted murder committed); Saienni v. State , 346 A.2d 152, 153–54 (Del. 1975) (affirming defendant's attempted murder conviction because defendant procured life insurance on victim, contracted hitman, t......
-
State v. Lavary
...that defendant was properly convicted of conspiracy. Other jurisdictions have adopted this "unilateral" approach. In Saienni v. State, Del., 346 A.2d 152 (Sup.Ct.1975), defendant argued on appeal he could not be guilty of conspiracy with a police informer and an undercover agent, both of wh......
-
State v. Mazur
...and People v. Cardosanto, 84 Misc.2d 275, 375 N.Y.S.2d 834 (Sup.Ct.1975), is unwarranted. In each of those cases, and in Saienni v. State, 346 A.2d 152 (Del.Sup.Ct.1975), relied on by the State herein, the courts were bound to follow conspiracy statutes which specifically permitted the jury......
-
Sheeran v. State
...418 A.2d 989 (1980); Thornton v. State, Del.Supr., 405 A.2d 126 (1979); James v. State, Del.Supr., 377 A.2d 15 (1977); Saienni v. State, Del.Supr., 346 A.2d 152 (1975). To satisfy this burden, the State must establish that a legal situs of the offense was in Delaware. In fact, at Sheeran's ......