State v. Doro
| Decision Date | 30 September 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 80.,80. |
| Citation | 134 A. 611 |
| Parties | STATE v. DORO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error to Court of Oyer and Terminer, Essex County.
Peter Doro, alias Peter Bruno, was convicted of first degree murder, and he brings error both by bill of exceptions and by specifications of causes for reversal under the Criminal Procedure Act. Affirmed.
James Mango and Nicholas La Vecchia, both of Newark, for plaintiff in error.
J. O. Bigelow, Prosecutor of the Pleas, of Newark, for the State.
The plaintiff in error, Peter Doro, alias Peter Bruno, hereinafter called the defendant, was indicted in the court of oyer and terminer of Essex county for the murder of Anna Abramowitz. He was convicted of murder in the first degree, and, no recommendation to life imprisonment being made by the jury, he was sentenced to death. He now brings up for review that judgment, both by bill of exceptions and by specifications of causes for reversal under section 136 of our Criminal Procedure Act (2 C. S. p. 1863).
It is contended that "the verdict of murder in the first degree was against the weight of the evidence." We think it was not. At the trial, the evidence tended to show, among others, the following matters of fact: Doro, the defendant, first met Mrs. Abramowitz, the decedent, early in the year 1923 in Boston, where she was living with her husband. Shortly thereafter Mr. and Mrs. Abramowitz moved to Cleveland. Ohio, and the defendant with his wife—for he also was married—followed her there. In Cleveland the defendant deserted his wife and brought Mrs. Abramowitz to Newark, where they took rooms on Walnut street. Early in October, 1925, the defendant arranged for her to go into a house of prostitution in New Brunswick to obtain money with which to pay for furniture. He accompanied her to the train. She returned in two weeks with $191. The defendant earned no money while in Newark. They quarreled frequently; the defendant calling her foul names unfit to print, and at times struck her. Early in November, 1925, they moved into an apartment on North Fifth street, which they shared with Mr. and Mrs. McKenna.
Thus far there is no substantial dispute in the testimony, although the defendant testified that Mrs. Abramowitz went to New Brunswick for the purpose of prostitution of her own volition and against his protest.
The state's case further tended to show the following more important matters of fact: In the early morning of November 11th, the day of the tragedy, the defendant and Mrs. Abramowitz had a bitter and violent quarrel, the result of the defendant's unnatural sexual practices upon Mrs. Abramowitz. That quarrel was composed upon Mrs. McKenna's entrance into their bedroom. That evening Mrs. Abramowitz and Mrs. McKenna went to a moving picture house; the defendant remaining in the apartment with Mr. McKenna. The latter went out about 9:30 p. m., leaving the defendant alone. The women returned at 10:45 p. m. Then, after the women had prepared tea, the quarrel which was to result in murder began. After the exchange of offensive epithets, the defendant "slapped" Mrs. Abramowitz in the face, and she "slapped" him. Then he "grinned" at her and said, "You have got to die." He went into adjoining rooms three times, and each time returned to the kitchen. When he entered the kitchen the third time Mrs. Abramowitz was wiping off the stove. He sprang upon her, forced her into a corner, and slashed her neck three times with a razor, inflicting the fatal wounds. Mrs. McKenna, who was standing by, screamed. Covered with blood, he thereupon immediately rushed into the street, pursued by Mrs. McKenna, who screamed, "He has just murdered somebody; catch him!" A policeman near by ran after the defendant, who fled down North Fifth street to Sussex street, where he turned east and jumped into a passing automobile. Another officer joined the chase, commandeered another car, and caught up with the defendant and subdued him after a struggle.
At the trial the defendant did not deny any of these occurrences on the day of the tragedy. He testified that after the women had gone to the theater he commenced drinking alcohol mixed with water, in company Willi Mr. McKenna; that they continued drinking until 9:30, when McKenna left, and he continued drinking alone. He testified, after that, he remembered nothing until the next morning, when he found himself in police headquarters.
It is now argued on behalf of the defendant that by reason of drunkenness his mental state was such that he was incapable of deliberation and premeditation, which are essential to murder in the first degree, and that therefore the verdict, which of course involved a finding of capacity for deliberation and premeditation, is against the weight of the evidence. We think that the argument is without substance in point of fact. In view of the other evidence, the jury was fully justified in disbelieving the defendant's testimony as to drunkenness. His testimony as to heavy drinking was not supported in the evidence, being contradicted by Mr. McKenna. The defendant's testimony as to drunkenness at the time of the killing was flatly contradicted by Mrs. McKenna, who saw the killing, by the numerous witnesses who saw his immediate and agile flight and speedy arrest, and by the numerous witnesses who saw and talked with him at police headquarters at midnight, at which time he made and signed a statement. It is therefore quite clear that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence.
We shall notice the remaining points made by the defendant in the order in which they have been argued.
The first relates to the denial of the defendant's motion for an adjournment. When the trial of the indictment was moved, the clerk called the roll of the special panel of 48 jurors which had been drawn from the general panel pursuant to section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Act (2 C. S. p. 1847) and served upon the defendant. Only 16 of these jurors answered to their names. Thereupon counsel for the defendant moved for an adjournment, and the court denied his motion. The record does not disclose why the jurors were absent, but it may be surmised that many of them had been drawn and were serving on other juries in other courts of the county, as so frequently happens in the larger counties.
It has been held in two cases that it is not error to proceed with the trial in the absence pi a certain number of jurors of the special panel. State v. Camill Martin, 94 N. J. Law, 139, 109 A. 350; State v. Frank Martin (N. J....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Driver
...indication that Mayer's visitors were known to him. See Hunter v. State, 40 N.J.L. 495, 538, 539 (E. & A.1878); State v. Doro, 103 N.J.L. 88, 93, 94, 134 A. 611 (E. & A.1926); State v. Stephan, 118 N.J.L. 592, 194 A. 273 (E. & A.1937); 1 Underhill, Criminal Evidence (5th ed. 1956) § 266.) S......
-
State v. Kociolek
...State v. Turco, 99 N.J.L. 96, 122 A. 844 (E. & A.1923); State v. Martin, 102 N.J.L. 388, 132 A. 93 (E. & A.1926); State v. Doro, 103 N.J.L. 88, 134 A. 611 (E. & A.1926); State v. Juliano, 103 N.J.L. 663, 138 A. 575 (E. & A.1927); State v. Cioffe, 128 N.J.L. 342, 26 A.2d 57 (Sup.Ct.1942), af......
-
State v. Butler, A--72
...fully and fairly protected the interests of the defendant and he is in no just position to complain about them. See State v. Doro, 103 N.J.L. 88, 94, 134 A. 611 (E. & A.1926); cf. Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 500, 71 S.Ct. 857, 862, 95 L.Ed. 1137, 1148 (footnote 2) (1951), reheari......
-
Wimberly v. City of Paterson
...abuse of discretion here in view of the reference to the report in the cross-examination of the arresting officer. State v. Doro, 103 N.J.L. 88, 134 A. 611 (E. & A. 1926). The plaintiff also complains of numerous asserted errors of the trial court involving the admission of testimony as to ......