Page images
[ocr errors]

to save expense to the plaintiffs. Nor do diately, under Court and Practice Act 1905, we think the other damages allowed to the $ 483, which reads as follows: "Sec. 483. Es. plaintiffs for actual occupation of the land ceptions to rulings, directions, and decisions and for detriment to the rest of the land made during a hearing in a cause heard by are so clearly excessive as to warrant an in the court without a jury or during a trial terference with the verdict.

by a jury shall be taken immediately. The defendants' exceptions are therefore *

As was clearly explained by Mat. overruled, and the case is remitted to the teson, C. J., in Bristow y. Nichols, 19 R. I. superior court, with direction to enter judg- 719, 37 Atl. 1033: "To render a trial not a ment on the verdict.

full, fair, or impartial trial, within the meaning of Gen. Laws 1896, c. 251, § 2, there

must, we think, be something more than (29 R. I. 428)

mere error on the part of the court which CAMPBELL V. CAMPBELL et al.

would form the subject of an exception. (Supreme Court of Rhode Island. March 12, Unless there be something more than this, 1909.)

to grant a new trial under section 2 would 1. Trial ($ 31*)—EXCEPTIONS TO RULINGS- be to do away practically with the procedure TIME FOR TAKING.

The conduct of the court, in compelling provided in section 6." counsel to choose either to continue the case That case is determinative of this, and without witnesses after the regular hour of ad- therefore the appellant's petition for a new journment or to limit the pumber of witnesses trial must be denied and dismissed. to be called on the following day to those he could forthwith name, is a ruling made during the hearing of a cause, subject to exceptions to be taken immediately, under Court and Practice

(109 Md. 602) Act 1905, § 483.

LANASA V. STATE. [Ed. Note.--For other cases, see Trial, Cent. (Court of Appeals of Maryland. Jan. 15, 1909.) Dig. 88 55, 84; Dec. Dig. $ 31.*]


A "conspiracy" in general terms is a comCOURT. The conduct of the court in requiring coun.

bination of two or more persons by concerted Bel to choose either to continue the case without ful purpose; or to accomplish some purpose,

action to accomplish some criminal or unlawwitnesses after the regular hour of adjournment not in itself 'criminal or unlawful, by criminal or or to limit the number of witnesses to be called unlawful means. The act intended need not on the following day to those he could forth- be punishable by indictment. The essence of with name, without having previous notification the offense is the unlawful agreement and combithat the court would sit beyond the usual time nation of the parties, and therefore it is comor that he would be compelled to make such plete whenever such combination is formed, choice, is not such a denial of an impartial though no act be done toward carrying the main trial as, under Court and Practice Act 1905, design into effect. $ 472, entitles a party to a new trial. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see New Trial, Cent. Dig. & 32; Dec. Dig. $ 23.*

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Conspiracy, Cent. Dig. $ 23; Dec. Dig. 8 20.*]

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, Action by Elisha J. Campbell against vol. 2, pp. 1454–1461; vol. 8, p. 7013.) George E. Campbell and others. There was a 2. CONSPIRACY ( 23*)-AGREEMENT FOR DE. verdict for defendants, and plaintiff petitions STRUCTION OF PROPERTY—“COMPLETED CEI. for a new trial. Petition denied and dis


A combination and agreement between two missed.

or more persons willfully and maliciously to See, also, 71 Atl. 369, 881.

injure and destroy the property of a third per

son is a "completed criminal conspiracy," and is Green, Hinckley & Allen, for petitioner. the subject of indictment; it not being necesJames Harris and Irving Champlin, for re- sary to the completion of the crime that the conspondents.

spirators should determine in advance what par

ticular property should be injured or destroyed. PER CURIAM. This is the appellant's pe Dec. Dig. & 23.*]

[Ed. Note.--For other cases, see Conspiracy, tition for a new trial, under Court and Prac. 3. CONSPIRACY (8 43*)-AGREEMENT TO DEtice Act 1905, § 472, upon the ground that

STROY PROPERTY-INDICTMENT-DESCRIPTION he did not have a full, fair, and impartial OF PROPERTY. trial in the superior court, for the reason

As it is not essential to the completion of that the justice who presided at the trial in the offense of conspiracy to destroy property

that any particular property should be destroge said superior court compelled his counsel to ed, it is not required that the object of the unchoose either to continue the case without executed conspiracy should be set out with great witnesses after the regular hour of adjourn. particularity and certainty in the indictment;

only such facts being required as shall fairly ment or to limit the number of witnesses to and reasonably inform the accused of the offense be called on the following day to those he with which he is charged. could forthwith name, without having pre- [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Conspiracy, viousl notified him that the court would Cent. Dig. $ 86; Dec. Dig. § 43.*] sit beyond the usual time that night, or that 4. CONSPIRACY (8 43*) AGREEMENT TO DEhe would be compelled to make such choice.


OF PROPERTY. The conduct of the court complained of An indictment charging a conspiracy to was subject to exception to be taken imme. I willfully and maliciously “injure and destroy the property” of the prosecutor is sufficient without |13. WITNESSES (8 198*) — “PRIVILEGED COMfurther description of the property.

MUNICATIONS"-ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Conspiracy,

To render communications between attor. Dec. Dig. $ 43.*]

ney, and client privileged, they must be made

during the existence of the actual relation or 5. CBIMINAL LAW ($ 878*)-VERDICT ON SEV-during interviews and negotiations looking to ERAL COUNTS-REPUGNANCY,

the establishment of such relationship, and must There is no repugnancy between the ver-relate to professional advice and to the subdict of guilty on a count charging conspiracy ject-matter about which such advice is sought. to maliciously “injure and destroy the property"

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Witnesses, of the prosecutor and the verdict of acquittal on Dec. Dig. $ 198.* a count charging conspiracy to “injure and destroy the property and dwelling house” of the vol. 6, p. 5591; vol. 8, p. 7764.)

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, prosecutor.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Criminal 14. WITNESSES ($ 222*) — PRIVILEGES Cor. Law, Cent. Dig. § 2101; Dec. Dig. 8 878.*]


Evidence held to show that the relation of 6. CRIMINAL LAW (8 1134*)-REVIEW-SUFFI- attorney and client did not exist between counCIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

sel for defendant and an accomplice so as to disThe sufficiency of the evidence will not be qualify him to testify to communications bereviewed on appeal from a judgment overruling tween them in contradiction to testimony of the & motion in arrest after conviction.

accomplice against defendant. (Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Criminal

[Ed. Note.- For other cases, see Witnesses, Law, Cent. Dig. § 2997; Dec. Dig. $ 1134.* ] Cent. Dig. $ 786; Dec. Dig. $ 222.*] 7. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ($ 257*)—DUE PRO- 15. CRIMINAL LAW (8 51042*)-TESTIMONY OF CESS OF LAW-CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. ACCOMPLICE-CORROBORATION.

Where a person accused of crime within A statement in writing made by an ac the state is subjected, like all other persons, complice 29 days after the crime and while in to the law in its regular course of administra- custody under a joint indictment for the same tion in a court of justice, he cannot be heard to offense is not admissible as corroborative evisay that the proceedings and judgment were dence after the testimony of the accomplice on without due process of law.

the trial has been contradicted. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Constitutional (Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. $ 746; Dec. Dig. $ 257.*] Law, Cent. Dig. $ 1135; Dec. Dig. § 51042. * ] 8. CRIMINAL LAW (8 1213*)-CBUEL AND UN- Appeal from Criminal Court of Baltimore USUAL PUNISHMENT.

A sentence to jail for 10 years on convic- City; D. G. Wright and Henry Stockbridge, tion of a member of the Black Hand of con

Judges. spiracy to destroy by a dynamite bomb the Antonio Lanasa was convicted of conspirproperty of a man who had refused to pay acy, and appeals. Reversed. money after threats against his life and property is not cruel or unusual within the prohibition

Argued before BOYD, C. J., and BRISof Const. U. S. Amend. 8, and Declaration of COE, PEARCE, SCHMUCKER, BURKE, Rights Md. art. 16.

THOMAS, WORTHINGTON, and HEN(Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Criminal RY, JJ. Law, Cent. Dig. $ 3308; Dec. Dig. $ 1213.*]

William L. Marbury and Thomas G. 9. CRIMINAL LAW (8 1149*)-REVIEW-DISCRE- Hayes, for appellant. Eugene O'Dunne and TION OF COURT-ELECTION BETWEEN COUNTS.

In the absence of any abuse thereof, the Isaac Lobe Straus, Atty. Gen., for the State. discretion of the trial court in its ruling on a motion to require the prosecution to elect be

BURKE, J. 1. Antonio Lanasa, together tween counts will not be reviewed on appeal.

(Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Criminal Law, the criminal court of Baltimore for the crime Cent. Dig. $ 30,58; Dec. Dig. & 1149.*]

of conspiracy. That court upon his motion 10. CRIMINAL LAW ($ 1149*)_REVIEW_DISCRETION OF COURT-BILL OF PARTICULARS.

granted a severance as to him, and after a In the absence of an abuse thereof, the lengthy trial he was convicted upon the discretion of the trial court in overruling a de- third count of the indictment, and was senmand for a bill of particulars will not be re-tenced to be confined in the Baltimore city viewed on appeal. [Ed. Note.--For other cases, see Criminal Law, judgment he has brought this appeal. The

jail for the term of 10 years. From that Cent. Dig. $ 3041; Dec. Dig. § 1149.*)

indictment contains 10 counts. The appel11. CRIMINAL LAW (8 510*)-EVIDENCE-TES-lant filed a general demurrer to the indictTIMONY OF ACCOMPLICES-CORROBORATION.

A conviction of conspiracy to destroy prop-ment and also demurred to each count. The erty cannot be had on the uncorroborated testi- second, fourth, and ninth counts were quashmony only of accomplices connecting defendanted by the court upon motion of the state's with the crime.

attorney. The demurrer to the indictment (Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. 88 1124, 1125; Dec. Dig. Å and to each count thereof was overruled. 510.*]

The traverser then moved the court to re12. WITNESSES (8 379*) — CREDIBILITY IM- quire the state to elect as to the third, sevPEACHMENT.

enth, and eighth counts, which motion the Testimony of statements by a witness out court overruled. He was found guilty upon of court contradictory to the material facts tes the third count, but was acquitted upon the tified to by him in court is admissible as affecting his credibility.

six remaining counts. Motions for a new [Ed. Note.--For other cases, see Witnesses, trial and in arrest of judgment were filed. Cent. Dig. $ 1209; Dec. Dig. § 379.*]

He abandoned the motion for a new trial, and the motion in arrest of judgment was upon the seventh count of the indictment the overruled by the Supreme Bench of Balti- traverser was acquitted of the identical more city. The object of the conspiracy crime for which he was convicted upon the charged in the counts of the indictment up- third count; secondly, because the judgment on which he was tried was as follows: deprives the appellant of his liberty without

(1) Feloniously, willfully, and of their due process of law, in violation of the fourmalice aforethought to kill and murder Jo- teenth amendment of the Constitution of the seph Di Giorgio.

United States, and constitutes a cruel and (3) To willfully and maliciously injure and unusual punishment, in violation of the Condestroy the property of Joseph Di Giorgio. stitution of the United States and of the

(5) Feloniously, willfully, and of their mal- Maryland Declaration of Rights. In the ice aforethought to kill and murder certain elaborate briefs filed by the counsel for the members of the family and household of the appellant and the state these questions have said Joseph Di Giorgio.

been fully discussed, and many cases, both (6) Unlawfully to wound, hurt, and injure in this country and in England, upon the certain members of the family and house law of conspiracy, have been called to our hold of the said Joseph Di Giorgio.

attention. It is apparent that upon this sub(7) Unlawfully to willfully and malicious- ject, as upon most others, there is inuch real ly injure and destroy the property and or apparent conflict to be found in the ad. dwelling house of the said Joseph Di Gior-judged cases. Upon the settled law of this gio.

state and upon the authority of well-rea(8) Unlawfully to willfully and malicious- soned cases in other jurisdictions, we canly injure and destroy the property and dwell. not agree that the count assailed is in any ing house then and there being of the said respect defective, or that the judgment Joseph Di Giorgio.

should be arrested. A conspiracy may be (10) Unlawfully to extort and obtain unto described in general terms, as a combinathemselves from the said Joseph Di Giorgio tion of two or more persons, by some concertain money and property of the said Jo- certed action, to accomplish some criminal seph Di Giorgio.

or unlawful purpose, or to accomplish some The fifth, and sixth counts set out the purpose, not in itself criminal or unlawful, names of the persons who were intended to by criminal or unlawful means. It is not es be injured, and the eighth and tenth counts sential that the act intended to be done set out certain overt acts done in pursuance should be punishable by indictment. The esof the conspiracy. It is important to note sence of the offense consists in the unlawful that Joseph Tamburo and Salvatore Lupo agreement and combination of the parties, are named as co-conspirators with Lanasa and therefore it is completed whenever such in each count of the indictment, and that combination is formed, although no act be upon the evidence of these two men the done towards carrying the main design into state relied to connect the appellant with effect. 3 Greenleaf on Evidence (2d Ed.) && the crime of which he was convicted. These 89-91. It may be said that this statement two facts become of great importance when of the law by Mr. Greenleaf announces the we come to consider the exceptions taken almost universally accepted doctrine upon to the rulings of the court upon the evi- the subject of criminal conspiracy. This is dence. Philipi Rei, who is frequently refer-made perfectly apparent by the numerous red to in the record, was an Italian, who, it citations from text-books and reports conis alleged, was induced by Lanasa to become tained in the briefs filed in this case. It is one of the co-conspirators. Rei was killed the rule which has obtained in this state in Pittsburg by a fellow countryman named since the great case of the State y. Buchan. Cinceria a day or two before the explosion an, 5 Har, & J. 317, 9 Am. Dec. 534, in which at Di Giorgio's home. On March 30, 1908, will be found a collection of many cases in Lupo pleaded guilty to the eighth count, and which an unexecuted conspiracy to commit after the conviction of Lanasa was sentenc-acts not in themselves indictable offenses, ed to jail for 15 months; and 2 days after was held to be a criminal conspiracy. In Lanasa's conviction the state entered a plea the course of his opinion in that case Judge of not guilty as to Tamburo. It was con- Buchanan said: “In 1 Hawk. P. C. 190, c. 72, tended with great earnestness and ability it is said: "There can be no doubt that all by the distinguished counsel for the appel- combinations whatsoever wrongfully to prej. lant that the demurrer to the third count udice a third person are highly criminal at should have been sustained, first, because it common law.' This is literally adopted and charges no crime; secondly, because it does | transcribed into 1 Burn's Justice, 378, and 3 not sufficiently describe the object of the Wilson's Works, 118. 3 Chitty, Criminal conspiracy. In support of the motion in ar- Law, 1139, says: 'In a word, all confederarest of judgment, in addition to the reasons cies wrongfully to prejudice another are misassigned for grounds of the demurrer, it was demeanors at common law, whether the inurged, first, that there is an absolute and tention is to injure his property, his person, necessary repugnancy between the verdicts or his character. And in 4 Blk. Com 137 rendered by the jury in that it is shown by (Christian's note 4): 'Every confederacy to unlawful, or prejudicial to the community, , evidence in their judgment did not fully supis a conspiracy." We cannot for a mo- port the allegations of these counts, it did ment doubt that a combination and agree satisfy them that it was the purpose of ment between two or more persons willfully the accused to injure and destroy some of and maliciously to injure and destroy the Mr. Di Giorgio's property. We must conclude property of a third person is a completed that they were so convinced by the verdict criminal conspiracy, and is the subject of of guilty upon the third count and the acan indictment. Nor is it necessary to the quittal upon the others. The sufficiency of completion of the crime that the conspirators the evidence was a question for the jury, and should determine in advance what particular this court upon a motion in arrest of judgproperty should be injured or destroyed. ment has no power to review their finding. To hold that the law cannot interpose and We said in Hiss v. Weik, 78 MD. 446, 28 Atl. arrest by criminal procedure the inalicious 401, that: “As an appellate court we canpurposes of the conspirators, unless they not review the findings of the jury upon matbad agreed upon the destruction of some ters of fact, nor can we pass upon the comparticular property, would strip it of its parative weight of the conflicting evidence most beneficent preventive powers, and leave submitted to them. If no error of law bad the confederates at liberty to consummate been committed by the inferior court in any their wicked purposes. The law is not so of its rulings, the verdict of the jury, whethimpotent and ineffective. As it is not es- er right or wrong, just or unjust, and even sential to the completion of the offense that though it be directly against and in the very any particular property should be destroyed, teeth and face of the preponderance of eviit is therefore not required that the object of dence, cannot be interfered with here; and the unexecuted conspiracy should be set out there is no power lodged elsewhere to set the with great particularity and certainty in the verdict aside, except with the Judge before indictment, because only such facts need be whom the case was tried.” Much that was stated as shall fairly and reasupably inform said in argument in support of the motion the accused of the offense with which he is in arrest of judgment cannot be considered charged. To require more in such a case by this court; but could have been approwould be to put an unnecessary burden up- priately addressed to the trial court upon an on the state, and make it impossible in many application for a new trial. cases to secure the conviction of the guilts. It is insisted by the appellant that the inThe position taken by the state that, in a dictment, trial, verdict, judgment, and senprosecution for such an offense as that charg-tence violate the sixth, eighth, and fourteenth ed in the third count, the indictinent need amendments of the federal Constitution, and not particularly describe the property, the the sixteenth and twenty-first articles of injury, or destruction of which was the ob- the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The ject of the conspiracy, is well supported by sixth amendment provides that in all crimthe authorities. 2 Bishop, New Criminal Pro- inal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the cedure, $$ 204, 207, 208; 2 Wharton's Crim- right to be informed of the nature and cause inal Law, c. 21; U. S. v. McKinley (C. C.) of the accusation, and the fourteenth de126 Fed. 242; Dealy v. United States, 152 clares that no state shall deprive any person U. S. 539, 14 Sup. Ot. 680, 38 L. Ed. 545; of life, liberty, or property without due proUnited States v. Stevens (D. C.) 44 Fed. cess of law. Practically the same declara132, 141; Ştate v. Straw, 42 N. H. 393; Rein- tions are found in the twenty-first and twenhold v. State, 130 Ind. 467, 30 N. E. 306; ty-third articles of the Declaration of Rights People v. Clark, 10 Mich. 314; 8 Cyc. 664, of this state. The object of these provisions 666.

was to declare and secure the pre-existing We are of opinion that the third count rights of the people as those rights had been charged the defendant with a common-law established by usage and the settled course conspiracy, and sufficiently informed him of of law. We take it to be settled that when a the crime charged. The objection against it person accused of crime within a state is is purely technical, as it is not pretended subjected, like all other persons, to the law that he was in the slightest degree injured in its regular course of administration in or prejudiced by the general and indefinite the courts of justice, he cannot be heard to description of the property, the destruction say that the proceedings and judgment were of which is charged to have been the object without due process of law because law in of the conspiracy. On the contrary, the rec- its regular and orderly administration ord shows that he was well informed as to through the courts is due process of law the accusation against him. Nor can we within the meaning of the constitutional prodiscover any necessary repugnance between visions, and, when the rights of the citizen the verdict of guilty on the third count and are thus secured by the law of the state, the the verdicts of acquittal on the seventh and requirements of the federal Constitution are eighth counts. In those counts the object of gratified. Having hereinbefore held that the conspiracy was alleged to be "to injure by the law of this state the third count of and destroy the property and dwelling house the indictment is sufficient, it necessarily folof Joseph Di Giorgio.” The jury might have lows that the appellant has been deprived of


first article of the Maryland Declaration of courts must adopt the methods of punishRights or the sixth or fourteenth amendment prescribed by law. No one ought to ment of the federal Constitution.

imagine that in a free country a court would It is urged that the judgment should be have the power to devise new and singular reversed, because it constitutes a cruel and modes of punishment. Its duty is 'dicere non unusual punishment in violation of the pro-facere legem.' Even where the law convisions of the Maryland Declaration of fides to the judge the imposition of the senRights and of the Constitution of the United tence without definite limit, it still may be States. In support of this contention the ap- possible to violate the Declaration of Rights. pellant relies upon the eighth amendment of If the punishment is grossly and inordinately the federal Constitution, which forbids the disproportionate to the offense so that the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment, sentence is evidently dictated not by a sense and upon article 16 of the Maryland Dec- of public duty, but by passion, prejudice, ill laration of Rights, which declares that no law will, or any other unworthy motive, the to inflict cruel and unusual pains and pen- judgment ought to be reversed and the cause alties ought to be made in any case, or at remanded for a more just sentence.” While any time hereafter. To dispose of this ques- the sentence in this case is severe, it is not tion we must understand the real crime of open to the objection of being in the sense which the accused was charged. Di Giorgio of the law cruel or unusual. We cannot re

a prominent business man living in view the action of the lower court in refusBaltimore city and engaged in the importa ing to require the state to elect between certion of fruit to the Baltimore market. He tain counts and in overruling the appellant's lived with his wife and family at Walbrook. demand for a bill of particulars. Those moIn order to extort money from him, threaten- tions were addressed to the sound discretion ing letters demanding money were sent him of the court, and its action upon them is not by an organization or society of men 'known the subject of an appeal in the absence of as the “Black Hand." He declined to comply some gross abuse of discretion in the lower with these demands, and on the night of De- court resulting in injury to the accused, and ceinber 10, 1907, a dynamite bomb was placed we find nothing of that kind in this case. in the rear room of his dwelling house and Warren v. Twilley, 10 Md. 39; Gibson v. exploded, terrorizing the occupants of the State, 54 Md. 453. In Gibson's Case it is house, and causing much damage. Whatever said: “No question has been raised in this may have been the motive which prompted court to the refusal of the court below to this act, whether it was an attempt to mur. compel the state to elect on which the prisder Di Giorgio and his family in revenge for oner should be tried. The practice is well his refusal to pay over money in response to settled in this state that such a motion is addemands made upon him, or had for its ulti- dressed to the discretion of the court, and mate purpose the coercion of Di Giorgio by is not a subject of appeal or writ of error. personal violence into a compliance with State v. Bell, 27 Md. 677, 92 Am. Dec. 658. these demands, there can be no two opinions | It is unnecessary to multiply authorities on as to the heinousness of the crime. It was this question, as they are practically unanian act characterized by the most malicious mous in support of the doctrine stated by and diabolical wickedness, and should be this court. punished with the greatest severity. We do 2. This brings us to the consideration of not think that a sentence of 10 years for the 36 bills of exception reserved by the such a crime would be open to any constitu- accused to the rulings of the trial court upon tional or other objections. In the case of questions of evidence. We have given these Mitchell v. State, 82 Md. 527, 34 Atl. 246, careful consideration; but we do not think where the accused had been sentenced to it necessary to discuss them all separately. jail for a term of 15 years upon a conviction We find no reversible error in the first, secfor an assault with intent to commit a rape, ond, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, this court passed upon the very question now ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, before us, and held that the sentence was not fourteenth, fifteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, a cruel and unusual punishment within the nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first, twentyconstitutional prohibition. It is said in that second, twenty-third, twenty-fourth, twentycase that "our law inflicts pain not in a sixth, twenty-seventh, twenty-eighth, and spirit of vengence, but to promote the essen- twenty-ninth exceptions. There was, howtial purposes of public justice. Severity is ever, serious error committed by the court not cruelty. The punishment ought to bear in the sixteenth, twenty-fifth, thirtieth, thirtya due proportion to the offense. Crimes of first, thirty-second, thirty-third, thirty-fourth, great atrocity ought to be visited with such thirty-fifth, and thirty-sixth exceptions. The penalties as would check, if not prevent, state relied largely upon the testimony of Tamtheir commission. It is impossible in the buro and Lupo to connect Lanasa with this abstract to mark the boundaries which sep- crime. Both were under indictment, and upon arate cruelty from just severity. If the the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices circumstances which accompany the crime connecting Lanasa with the crime the law does are of unusual aggravation, the punishment not permit a conviction to stand. Wharton's

« PreviousContinue »