De Salvo v. People, 13806.
| Decision Date | 09 March 1936 |
| Docket Number | 13806. |
| Citation | 98 Colo. 368,56 P.2d 28 |
| Parties | DE SALVO v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, Pueblo County; William B. Stewart, Judge.
Russell De Salvo was convicted of rape, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
V. G. Seavy and Charles F. Keen, both of Pueblo for plaintiff in error.
Paul P Prosser, Atty. Gen., and Walter F. Scherer, Asst. Atty. Gen for the People.
Russell De Salvo, alias Bullhead, was found guilty of forcibly raping Matilda Zupancic, to whom for the sake of brevity we shall refer as Matilda. A motion for a new trial was denied, and the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than 25 nor more than 35 years.
On the night of March 25, 1934, De Salvo (alias Bullhead), Joe Carlino (alias Candy), Matilda, then 18 years of age, a man whom we shall call Joe, and a girl whom we shall call Anna were at the Sunset Inn, in or near Pueblo. Matilda told them that she had to go home. They got in an automobile. De Salvo drove. Instead of taking Matilda to her home, he drove out into the country to a secluded place, where he stopped the automobile. It was about 1:20 o'clock in the morning of the 26th. Matilda vainly requested to be taken home. She then attempted to get out of the automobile, but Carlino pushed her back. De Salvo, Joe, and Anna got out of the automobile. At that hour and place there was nothing for them to do or see. They obligingly withdrew to a distance of about 60 or 70 feet and waited, for no apparent reason other than to enable Carlino to rape Matilda, which he proceeded to do. When Carlino attacked her, she screamed and fought, whereupon Carlino repeatedly struck her in the face with his fist. During the struggle Carlino called to De Salvo to come and take his eyeglasses, saying, 'She wants to break them.' De Salvo took them. It is a reasonable inference that he did so to enable Carlino to accomplish his purpose with the least possible inconvenience and injury to himself. Anna testified that she heard Matilda scream. However, nobody went to her relief. Apparently the proceedings were entirely satisfactory to every one but the victim. After Carlino had succeeded in his efforts, he called to De Salvo to come. When De Salvo reached the automobile, Carlino got out and De Salvo entered. Matilda attempted to leave, but De Salvo pulled her back and started hitting her in the face. She struggled to the utmost of her strength to prevent him from accomplishing his purpose. She screamed repeatedly, but her screams seem to have fallen upon deaf or unwilling ears. He repeatedly struck her in the face, drawing blood. Finally, but not without a struggle, he succeeded in raping her. After the encounter, Matilda's face was beaten up, her lip was swollen and bleeding, and she had 'two black eyes.' Four photographs showing the condition of her face were introduced in evidence.
Matilda was taken to her home, arriving at about 2:15 o'clock in the morning. On the way De Salvo tole Matilda not to say anything to the police. Her parents were asleep, and she did not want to wake them up. Moreover, her mother was ill, and Mrtilda did not want her to see the condition she was in. She waited until 6 o'clock and then told her mother, sister, and brother about the attack. They went to police headquarters that morning, and there, at about 9:30 o'clock, Matilda complained to Officer McDonald of the attack.
Some of the foregoing facts were undisputed. The rest were testified to by Matilda, and her testimony was corroborated in important particulars by other witnesses and by the photographs. De Salvo denied those parts of the testimony tht tended to incriminate him. The jury and the court heard the evidence and observed the appearance and demeanor of the witnesses while on the stand, and were better able than we are to judge of their credibility. The jury believed the testimony in behalf of the people and disbelieved that in behalf of the defendant, and the court, by denying the motion for a new trial, approved the findings of the jury. The foregoing statement of facts, therefore, must be taken to be a true statement of what occurred.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Steele
...156 Kan. 508, 134 P.2d 414, 416 (Sup.Ct.1943); State v. Jones, 62 Idaho 552, 113 P.2d 1106 (Sup.Ct.1941); DeSalvo v. People, 98 Colo. 368, 56 P.2d 28, 29 (Sup.Ct.1936); State v. Warner, 79 Utah 510, 13 P.2d 317, 319 (Sup.Ct.1932); State v. Paddock, 86 Mont. 569, 284 P. 549, 551 (Sup.Ct.1930......
-
Johnson v. People
...cannot say there was any unnecessary delay between the time the crime was committed and the time it was reported. Compare De Salvo v. People, 98 Colo. 368, 56 P.2d 28. No hard and fast rule can be laid down on the subject of corroboration. Each case must depend largely on its own merits and......
-
Watson v. State
...charged with the commission of such act." (Italics ours.) 42 C.J.S., Indictments and Informations, § 159, page 1108. De Salve v. People, 98 Colo. 368, 56 P.2d 28; People v. Falley, 366 Ill. 545, 9 N.E.2d 324; People v. Musial, 349 Ill. 516, 182 N.E. 608; Nolan v. Commonwealth, 290 Ky. 482, ......
-
Watson v. State
... ... ours.) 42 C.J.S., Indictments and Informations, § 159, page ... 1108. De Salve v. People, 98 Colo. 368, 56 P.2d ... 28; People v. Falley, 366 Ill. 545, 9 N.E.2d 324; ... People v ... ...