State v. Cianflone

Decision Date01 March 1923
Citation98 Conn. 454,120 A. 347
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE v. CIANFLONE ET AL.

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Isaac Wolfe, Judge.

Joseph Cianflone and Mike Rugiero were convicted of murder in the second degree, and they appeal. No error.

Henry J. Calnen, of Hartford, for appellant Rugiero.

Gustaf B. Carlson, of Middletown, and Nathan O. Freedman, of Hartford, for appellant Cianflone.

Hugh M Alcorn, State's Atty., and Reinhart L. Gideon, Asst State's Atty., both of Hartford, for the State.

WHEELER, C.J.

The first appeal is from the denial of the motion of the accused to set aside the verdict. We shall dispose of this appeal before taking up the additional appeal which concerns interlocutory rulings, exceptions to the charge, and rulings upon evidence.

Examination of the evidence shows that the state offered evidence to prove the following facts: During the summer of 1920, the accused, with six others, including two brothers and a brother-in-law of the accused Joseph Cianflone, were associated in the unlawful transportation and sale of intoxicating liquors, and were accustomed to meet in New Britain, in the store of John Cianflone, brother of the accused Joseph Cianflone. In August, 1920, eight barrels of alcohol were brought from New York to New Britain by or for some or all of the members so associated, and there secreted. Three of the barrels were stolen, and the theft almost immediately reported to several of the members who were in the store of John Cianflone, including the accused Joseph who then said in an angry manner:

" I would like to find out who took that liquor, and that the fellow that did steal it ought to get punished."

Between this date and November 2, 1920, the accused were frequently together in New Britain and elsewhere; Joseph was in New Britain on October 23 and 24, and in the vicinity of Farmington and New Britain until after 11 o'clock on the night of October 25. About 10 in the morning of October 25, the day of the homicide, the accused left New Britain in a Cadillac touring car, driven by Joseph, bound for Hartford Reservoir No. 4 in Farmington. Pursuant to previous arrangement to drive the accused to a place outside of New Britain where they said they had an appointment concerning a liquor transaction, Crapanese met the accused in New Britain and drove them to the reservoir at a lonely spot, reaching the place about 11, where they had previously arranged to meet Renaldino. The accused instructed Crapanese to keep the car in second gear. When Renaldino appeared, the accused got out of their car and talked with him about some whisky. Renaldino said he had about $900 with him and would give them the rest tomorrow. The accused Joseph said, " Get in your car, and we will show you." Renaldino turned to get in his car, and Rugiero pinioned both his arms holding him securely. Joseph searched his pockets and took out a large roll of bills and a revolver. When Renaldino called for help, Joseph tied a handkerchief about his mouth tightly and at the same time dealt him a powerful blow on the jaw. Then Joseph put the pistol to Renaldino's ear and said, " I'll show you that you won't steal any more whisky from anybody else," and fired, killing him instantly. After the shooting, Joseph placed the stock of the revolver in Renaldino's right hand and the muzzle of it in his upturned left hand while both hands remained under the driving wheel. The revolver could not have been placed in this position by Renaldino after the shot was fired. Joseph then took from his own pocket a grocery store order book on the front page of which was written in Italian as translated:

" 26 Franklin Street. Macini heard I had $2,000. They murdered me. They made me suffer. What suffering, Lily, good bye."

The " Lily" named was the wife of Renaldino. Then Joseph took a small red pencil from Renaldino's pocket and placed the book and pencil on the side of Renaldino's body and scattered some money and change around and in the roadway to give the appearance of suicide as well as murder. Renaldino was found in about an hour after he was shot. Joseph told Crapanese as they were leaving to keep his mouth shut or they would do the same thing to him, and on their return to New Britain he offered Crapanese a sum of money for his services in driving the car, which he refused to take. Later in the afternoon Crapanese and Joseph were seen in conversation in New Britain, and at that time Joseph told Crapanese that he had killed Renaldino because he had stolen the alcohol referred to. Crapanese was friendly with both accused and had worked for the Cianflone brothers during most of the summer of 1920, his work consisting chiefly in driving motor vehicles transporting liquor for them and others.

Crapanese remained in New Britain until about Christmas. Joseph left New Britain in November, and up to that time he and Rugiero were together at various times. In March, 1921, Crapanese came from his home in Brooklyn to New Britain, and when there Joseph charged him with having said something which might implicate him in Renaldino's killing, and at the same time slashed him across the left cheek with a razor. Crapanese was taken into custody as a material witness in September, 1921, and held as such down to the trial. Except as stated, Crapanese had no knowledge of the real purpose for which the accused met Renaldino and had no knowledge that a homicide was to be committed. The state claimed that the shooting was done with malice aforethought, willfully, deliberately, and premeditatedly, and that the accused Rugiero actively aided, abetted, and assisted the accused Joseph Cianflone in the homicide, both before and at the time of the homicide, and that the accused met Renaldino with the deliberate purpose and intent of killing him, and that the offer to sell whisky to Renaldino was a mere pretext to lure him to the selected spot.

The accused offered evidence to prove that they were not in the state at the time of this homicide; that Joseph had no interest in the three barrels of alcohol which the state claimed were stolen, and that neither of them believed or had reason to believe that Renaldino had stolen this alcohol, and never had business relations with him, and knew him but slightly, and had no reason to take his life; that neither accused saw or talked with Crapanese on October 23 or October 24, and made no arrangements with him to go in an automobile on October 25; that Rugiero did not in October own a Cadillac car, and that neither accused used, on October 25, such car; that the accused had no motive for killing Renaldino, and did not kill him, and were not present when he met his death The evidence was conflicting. In such a case manifestly we cannot hold as matter of law that the verdict should have been set aside. Moreover our consideration of the evidence has led us to the conclusion that the jury were amply justified in reaching the conclusion they did, and that, had they found the accused guilty as charged, their verdict could not have been set aside as contrary to the evidence.

The appeal from the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict should never have been taken, as it required the printing of over 500 pages of the evidence, and any careful examination and comparison of the evidence would have led irresistibly to the conclusion that the appeal upon such a ground must prove fruitless.

We pass to the additional appeal and take up first the interlocutory rulings. Cianflone moved to expunge from the indictment the alias of " the Cowboy" following his name. The accused was known by this name, and the state had the right to designate him by the alias under which he was known. Viberg v. State, 138 Ala. 100, 35 So. 53, 100 Am.St.Rep. 22.

Rugiero, by his motion to expunge and for a more specific statement, sought to attack the right of the state to charge the two accused in one count of the indictment as principals and in another count to charge one of these accused as an accessory. The motion was properly denied. In State v. Hamlin, 47 Conn. 120, 36 Am.Rep. 54, we said:

" In this state it is not necessary * * * to state in an indictment against an accessory the acts which show that he aided and abetted the crime, and thus became in law a principal; but it is sufficient to charge him directly as a principal, and proof that he was an accessory before the fact will support the charge. There is no objection, however, to the joinder of a count charging two or more parties as principals with a count charging one or more of the same parties as principals and the others as accessories before the fact, as the proof required to support the latter count will also be sufficient to support the former." State v. Burns, 82 Conn. 218, 72 A. 1083, 16 Ann.Cas. 465.

The accused also moved that the State be required to elect upon which count of the indictment it should proceed against them. The motion was denied, and, since the court exercised its discretion, its decision cannot be revised upon appeal, unless it plainly appears that injustice has been done, and there is no indication of this upon the record. State v. Tuller, 34 Conn. 298.

Before the jury was impaneled, counsel for both accused moved for a change of venue. No evidence was offered in support of the motion, and no reasons given, except the statement of counsel that the case had had considerable publicity. The court denied the motion. The ruling must stand, since it was within the court's discretion, and the facts do not disclose that the court exercised that discretion unreasonably. Wharton, Criminal Procedure, § 1537.

Before the jury was impaneled, counsel for both accused moved for separate trials. No claim was then made that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
61 cases
  • State v. Rodriguez
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • April 29, 1980
    ...162 U.S. 313, 314, 16 S.Ct. 839, 40 L.Ed. 980 (1896); State v. Vars, 154 Conn. 255, 263, 224 A.2d 744 (1966); cf. State v. Cianflone, 98 Conn. 454, 463, 120 A. 347 (1923). Where the state is faced with a homicide prosecution, it may, in good faith and where the circumstances reasonably warr......
  • State v. Fernandez
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • December 10, 1985
    ...commanding authority, and it often happens in a court-room that he may ascertain the truth when counsel has failed." State v. Cianflone, 98 Conn. 454, 469, 120 A. 347 (1923). While it is his responsibility to conduct the trial as impartially as is humanly possible, a trial judge must avoid ......
  • State v. Turcio
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • June 26, 1979
    ...fair when weighed in the light of the other paragraphs of the charge. State v. Groos, 110 Conn. 403, 410, 148 A. 350; State v. Cianflone, 98 Conn. 454, 466, 120 A. 347 .... It is well recognized that the credibility of alibi witnesses is a subject as to which fair comment by the court to th......
  • State v. Bember
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • April 7, 1981
    ...as it is more often expressed, abused his discretion. The judge must not exhibit bias or prejudice nor take sides." State v. Cianflone, 98 Conn. 454, 469, 120 A. 347 (1923). The trial judge must avoid taking an apparent position of advocacy in the case before him. 4 See Quercia v. United St......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT