People v. Giusto

On the morning of ITovember 9th, 1911, Mrs. Mary Hall was •stabbed to death in the apartment which she occupied in the Griffin homestead, a lonely dwelling on a farm situated on a side road between Yorktown Heights and Bradley’s Camp, in the county of Westchester. The homicide was actually committed by one or more members of a party of six Italians, who were engaged at the time in robbing or attempting to rob the inmates of the house. The party consisted of these five defendants and •one (Santa Zanza, whose conviction of murder in the first degree

The ground floor of the Griffin house was divided by a main hall from which a stairway led to the second story. The portion of the house on the east side of this hall was occupied by Hiss Anna 0. Griffin in whose employ was a hired man who worked upon the farm. The rooms west of the hall were occupied by Mrs. Gertrude Eae and her husband and two young children; while upstairs on the second floor were two rooms occupied by Hr. and Mrs. Hall.

While she was eating her breakfast Miss Griffin noticed a man walking around among the rocks in the edge of the woods north of the house “ in a leisurely way, just looking' over the country.” After breakfast Mr. Hall and Mr. Eae went.to Bradley’s Camp and the hired man went to husk corn in a field at some distance from the house. About nine o’clock while Miss Griffin was engaged in ironing she noticed some Italians who came to a door where the family were accustomed to sell milk and stood there. She went to the door -and asked them what they wanted. There were four or five of them. One of the men asked for eggs, and upon being told by Miss Griffin that she had none they said they wanted a quart of milk which she measured out for them, receiving fifty cents in payment. In order to make change she went inside to the dining room taking the money from a little basket there; and while she was counting it out she observed that the men were watching her

After an absence of about five minutes the party returned to the door and again asked for eggs and also for chicken. Being told by Miss Griffin that she had neither they requested another quart of milk which she measured out in a cup and handed to Zanza. One of the men held out another fifty-cent piece toward her and as she reached to take it Cali seized her by the right wrist and pointed a revolver at her exclaiming “ Hands up! ” The other men stood around Cali at the time. He ordered her to lie down and Miss Griffin got down on her knees in obedience to his command whereupon he directed the others to go into the house and then led her in and demanded three thousand dollars from her. She said she had not so much money, to which he responded that he wanted all she had, and still covering her with his revolver he forced her to open her pocketbook and give him its contents, about four dollars.

Miss Griffin was the school-tax collector of her district and was also managing the farm. She kept most of her money in a safe in the hall and upon Cali’s demand for more she went into the bedroom adjacent to the dining room where she obtained the key of the safe, to which she proceeded for the purpose of opening it. Cali had released her hand, but was following her with his revolver pointed at her all the time; and as they went past the foot of the stairs leading to Mrs. Hall’s apartment above she saw a man coming downstairs, and as she knelt to open the safe another man coming out from Mrs. Bae’s apartment. She opened the safe and took out fifty-five or sixty-five dollars, which she says she “ handed up and somebody took it.” The money consisted of ten-dollar bills and one five. She described the ten-dollar bills as “yellow backs,” presumably thereby meaning gold certificates. Upon receiving the money the men disappeared. “ They went so quickly,” says Miss Griffin, “ I didn’t know how they went.”

After the men had disappeared Miss Griffin called to Hrs. Hall on the floor above, and receiving no response, went upstairs. On entering the living room, on the second story, she was horrified to find the body of Hrs. Hall, prostrate upon the floor of her apartment. Hrs. Hall had been gagged with her own apron and there were stains of blood upon her dress. Hiss Griffin could detect no signs of breathing and Mrs. Hall was in fact dead, as the result of three stab wounds inflicted by a knife or some other sharp instrument in the hands of one or both of the robbers, who had made their way upstairs while Hiss Griffin and Hrs. Eae were resisting the others below.

This narrative of the circumstances of the robbery and murder is a statement of the facts which the jury were warranted in finding to have been established by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The indictment in each case charged the defendant with murder in the first degree; by the first count as having been committed with a deliberate and premeditated design to effect the death of the said Mary Hall, and by the second count, in the common-law form. This permitted a conviction upon proof of the killing of Hrs. Hall without a design to effect her death by the defendants while engaged in committing or attempting to commit a felony, to wit, robbery (People v. Sullivan, 173 N. Y. 122 , 17 N. Y. Crim. 180 ; People v. Friedman, 205 N. Y. 161 , ante), and if the defendants were associated in the crime of robbery or attempted robbery, and the homicide was committed in furtherance of their common purpose by one of them, all his associates present or at hand and aiding and abetting in the perpetration of the lesser felony would be equally liable for murder in the first degree. Under the second subdivision of section 1044 of the Penal Law the killing of a

It was upon this theory that the several defendants were prosecuted and convicted. The evidence pointed strongly toward Zanza and Giusto as the actual perpetrators of the homicide; but whoever did the killing, the fact was clearly established that all the defendants were robbing or engaged in an attempt to rob the inmates of the Griffin homestead when Mrs. Hall was slain by some of their number in furtherance of their common design to plunder. This is sufficient to sustain the convictions, unless some error was committed upon the trial prejudicial to the defendants.

Giusto was the only one of these five defendants who took the stand in his own behalf. His testimony in and of itself is sufficient to sustain the verdict against bim. It shows that he went to the Griffin homestead with the other defendants to rob the inmates of the house; that he participated actively in the effort to rob them; and that Mrs. Hall was killed by one of his confederates while the robbery was going on. His confession proved by the prosecution also shows that he was an actual participant in the very act of killing; for while he attributes the stabbing to Zanza, he admits that he held Mrs. Hall while Zanza thrust the stiletto into her body. It is contended in his

In the case of O'ona no evidence whatever was introduced on behalf of the defendant. On this appeal his counsel challenges the sufficiency of his identification by Mrs. Eae as the person who pushed open the door of her bedroom and pointed a revolver at her as he followed her out. That identification, however, was clear and positive and the jury must have believed that she was not mistaken when she pronounced Oona to be the man. In the absence of any contradiction we cannot

The chief argument in behalf of the defendants Filepo De Marco and Gali is the alleged absence of any connection between the murder in Mrs. Hall’s room and the robbery on the ground floor. This point is disposed of by what has already

The complicity of the defendant Salvatore De Marco in the conspiracy and robbery was amply established by his confession made to the sheriff and other officers of Westchester county. The record does not sustain the contention of his counsel that the confession was obtained by methods which the law forbids. On the contrary, the circumstances under which it was procured rendered it clearly competent under the statute. (Code Oiv. Proc., § 395.) In People v. Rogers ( 192 N. Y. 331 , 22 N. Y. Crim. 376 ), this court sanctioned the admission of a confession which was obtained as the result of far more urgency by the captors of the prisoner than was exercised or attempted in the present case. "

There was ample “ additional proof that the crime charged has been committed ” required by section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to render the confession of a defendant sufficient to warrant his conviction. The substance-of the crime charged was robbery committed by a band of conspirators, in the course of which one of them killed Mary HalL The death of Mrs. Hall under the circumstances • which have already been narrated was proof of the homicide. The proof additional to the confession of his complicity in the robbery was furnished by the discovery of a revolver and some money which this defendant had hidden in the neighborhood of the Griffin house shortly after the robbery and murder. In his confession he stated that he had left his revolver and money in the vicinity, and upon being taken to the place which he indicated the money—forty-five dollars in bills, four tens and a five—was found under a stone, and within a few feet of the money was discovered a thirty-eight calibre pistol fully loaded.

According to the confession of the defendant Salvatore De Marco, he was the member of the party who did the acts which the testimony of Miss Griffin and Mrs. Rae attributes to the defendant Cali, and neither of these ladies would identify this defendant as having done what he confessed that he did. Bis counsel insists that this discrepancy deprives the evidence for the prosecution of the cogency and weight necessary to sustain a conviction, but the jury were not required to accept the contradiction by the ladies as conclusive. As the learned trial judge pointed out in denying a motion to dismiss the indictment: “ They did not say that he was not one of the men engaged in the crime of robbery. They say simply that they do not recognize him as one of the men and they say moreover that he is not the man who dealt directly with them.” If the jury believed the confession of the defendant to the effect that he was there and was one of the men engaged in robbing the house, it made no difference what they believed as to the precise character of his conduct in the course of the robbery. The inability of the ladies to recognize this defendant was undoubtedly a point in his favor to the benefit of which he was entitled, and we must conclude that it was given its full weight, for the jury were clearly instructed in regard to the matter in the charge of the court. As has been intimated, this discrepancy between the confession and the testimony of Miss Griffin and Mrs. Rae did not require a rejection of the material and essential parts of the confession, and if these were true and were corroborated, as we think they were, by additional proof

There is no ground on which this court would be justified in interfering with the verdict in any of these cases and the judgments of conviction should be affirmed.

Cullen, Ch. J., Haight, Vann, Webneb and Chase, JJ., concur; Quay, J., absent.

Judgments of conviction affirmed.