State v. Romeo
Decision Date | 03 September 1912 |
Docket Number | 2353 |
Citation | 128 P. 530,42 Utah 46 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE v. ROMEO et al |
Rehearing Denied December 17, 1912.
APPEAL from District Court, Seventh District; Hon. A. H Christensen, Judge.
Frank Romeo and two others were convicted of murder in the first degree. They appeal.
AFFIRMED.
W. H Frye, C. C. McWhinney and Booth, Lee, Badger, Rick & Parke for appellants.
A. R. Barnes, Attorney-General, E. V. Higgins, and Geo. C. Buckle, Assistant Attorneys-General, for the State.
The three defendants were jointly charged with first-degree murder, the homicide of Albert Jenkins at Sunnyside, on the 5th day of February, 1911. Corier was first tried, found guilty, and sentenced to life imprisonment in the state prison. Thereafter Romeo and Zaffy were tried together. Both were convicted and sentenced to suffer death. Both appeal.
The questions for review relate to the admission of certain testimony, the court's refusal to charge as requested by the defendants, and portions of the charge. We shall refer only to so much of the evidence as is necessary to properly review them.
Corier was a baker at Sunnyside. At that place Jenkins, the deceased, and one Bentley conducted a gambling business. Romeo and Zaffy were in Salt Lake City out of employment. A countryman of theirs informed them that work could probably be procured at Sunnyside, and wrote to Corier about it. Corier sent tickets to Salt Lake for the defendants' transportation to Sunnyside. They arrived there on the evening of the 3d of February, and were met at the train by Corier. He gave them supper, and money for a night's lodging. The next day Corier quit his employment, and was paid off. On the morning of the 4th Romeo and Zaffy visited and drank at saloons, and later went to coke ovens at Sunnyside. There, in the afternoon, they were joined by Corier. They remained there until late at night, and drank much whisky. In the early morning of the 5th, between 12:30 and 1 o'clock, the deceased was robbed and killed as he and Bentley were on their way home from their place of business. Bentley, a witness for the state, testified that he and Jenkins left the saloon, where they conducted a gambling business, at about 12:30 o'clock a. m. to go to Bentley's house, about a hundred yards away, and followed a path or trial leading from the saloon to the house. Jenkins in his coat pocket carried a sack containing $ 282 in silver. He also had $ 130 in gold in a purse. He carried a black handled double-action revolver in his waistband. As they approached a toilet along the path, three men, two of whom at least had guns, suddenly stepped out from behind the toilet and fired, first at Jenkins, and then at Bentley. Bentley ran and fell to the ground The bullet was deflected by striking a book in his pocket and abraded the skin about the abdomen. The bullet was later found in his clothes. After the assailants had departed Jenkins called for help. Bentley and others assisted him to the house. He had one gunshot wound in the arm and one "in the region of the naval," which caused his death two or three hours later. He also had a deep and rather long wound or cut in the neck made by a sharp instrument. His clothing bore bullet marks and cuts. There were several fresh bullet marks in the toilet, and some in a house along the path. Bentley was unable to identify either of the defendants.
Another witness, attracted by the shooting, heard the deceased cry out, "Take the money, but don't murder me." He saw two men run from the place where the shooting occurred, and shortly thereafter a third. He recognized the third as the defendant Corier. A slight snow, two or three inches, had fallen earlier in the night. Three distinct foot tracks were discovered about the toilet and its vicinity. They were traced from there to the railroad track and across the country in the direction the assailants went. The tracks, beyond dispute and all doubt, were those of the three defendants. The assailants were pursued by officers and a posse. Zaffy and Corier were apprehended and arrested the next day about twenty miles from Sunnyside; Romeo the day after still farther away, at Green River. Romeo had in his possession a loaded white handled revolver, eight additional cartridges, a razor with blood on it, and a sack containing $ 85.50 in silver. The sack was identified as that carried by Jenkins and taken from him. Zaffy had $ 4.50 or $ 5.50, and Corier about $ 35 or $ 37. Neither Corier nor Zaffy had weapons when they were arrested. Each of the defendants freely and voluntarily made statements to the officers and others as to their connection with the transaction. Zaffy told them that he met Romeo in Salt Lake about two weeks before they went to Sunnyside. They were out of work, and Romeo proposed that they go to Sunnyside. Romeo told him he would furnish tickets if he would go with him. A few days later they received tickets and went to Helper, and then to Sunnyside, where they were met at the train by Corier. He gave them supper and Romeo five dollars to pay for their lodging and breakfast. The next morning Zaffy and Romeo visited saloons, and had several drinks. They then went over in the brush near the coke ovens, and remained there until in the afternoon, when they were joined by Corier, who brought with him two bottles of whisky. They remained there drinking the whisky until about eight o'clock in the evening. They then went to the Italian saloon, where Romeo bought a half gallon of whisky. They took it, and "went up to the cedars," and remained there until late at night, drinking whisky. While drinking in the brush near the ovens, "they made up this plan to hold up two gamblers that was over there at that saloon where they had drank that morning." Zaffy did not want to go, but was afraid of Romeo, who, he said, was "a black-hand man." Romeo and Corier gave him more whisky, and he got pretty drunk. The three men went over where the gamblers lived, and hid in the water-closet. The two men came along there, and they all ran out and there was lots of shooting. He had no gun and did no shooting. He saw the two men do a little shooting, but saw no money and no gun, except he saw "Romeo have a white handled gun sticking in his belt as they were running through the cedars after the shooting." He said he was so drunk when the shooting occurred that he did not clearly remember what all took place, and that he was not able to help himself. He fell down, and his companions helped him up to get away. The three remained together until they reached Cedar Station. There they were pursued and shot at by officers. They separated, Zaffy and Corier remaining together, continuing their flight until their arrest.
Romeo told the officers and others that Zaffy and Corier had not treated him right, and he, too, wanted to make a statement. He told them about getting the tickets and going to Sunnyside, meeting Corier, drinking whisky, substantially as related by Zaffy; that while he and Zaffy were in the brush near the ovens Corier
Corier's version of the affair as told the officers is this: Romeo and Zaffy came to his bakeshop. He gave them something to eat and gave Romeo five dollars to pay for their lodging at the Italian hotel. Corier intended to leave Sunnyside on the 4th and go to Salt Lake, there to work at his trade, and for that reason quit his employment at Sunnyside. That ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Crank
...v. Wells, 35 Utah 400, 100 P. 681, 136 Am. St. Rep. 1059, 19 Ann. Cas. 631; State v. Dunkley, 85 Utah 546, 39 P.2d 1097; State v. Romeo, 42 Utah 46, 128 P. 530." appears there was some confusion in the mind of court and counsel as to the procedure where it is sought to put a confession in e......
-
Witherspoon v. State of Illinois
...and impose the death penalty. Del.Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§ 571, 3901 (1966 Supp.); Utah Code Ann. § 76—30—4 (1953), State v. Romeo, 42 Utah 46, 128 P. 530 (1912). 5. Arkansas: Ark.Stat.Ann. § 43—2152 (1964); Connecticut: Conn.Gen.Stat.Rev. § 53—9 (1965 Supp.); Delaware: State v. Price, 30 Del......
-
State v. Cari
... ... See Shaw v. United States, 244 F.2d 930, 17 Alaska 1 (9th Cir.); Gomila v. United States, 146 F.2d 372 (5th Cir.); Chinn v. State, 210 So.2d 666 (Miss.); Martinez v. People, 172 Colo. 82, 470 P.2d 26, 29; State v. Romeo, 42 Utah 46, 128 P. 530. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of courts have held that statements in a charge which instruct the jury that the presumption of innocence is designed to protect the innocent and not to aid the guilty are proper. See United States v. Farina, 184 F.2d 18, 20 ... ...
-
Richey v. State
...been passed upon in the latter case. Instruction No. 4 was erroneous as to the proof required of the charge of the offense. (State v. Romeo, 42 Utah 46; 128 P. 536.) Instruction No. 6 should not have been given. Instruction 8 1/2 was an attempt to define circumstantial evidence but mis-stat......