Mandella v. State

29 N.W.2d 723, 251 Wis. 502, 1947 Wisc. LEXIS 409
Wisconsin Supreme Court·Decided October 17, 1947·Published·Cited by 15 cases

Opinion

Fritz, J.

On their writs of error the defendants, John and Jerome Mandella and Dominic Lampone, contend that the circuit court erred in overruling their pleas in abatement which were based on the ground that on their preliminary hearing there was not sufficient evidence .to warrant the municipal court in holding that either of the crimes charged in the informations ultimately filed against them was committed by them; and that there was no reasonable ground to believe any of them committed the offenses charged or to warrant binding them over for trial in the circuit court on those charges. Furthermore, each of said defendants, and likewise the defendant Louis M. Fazio, on-his writ of error, contends that the court erred as to each of them in denying his motions for a separate trial and for a directed verdict and his discharge, for the setting aside of the verdict, and for the granting of a new trial for the reason that there was no credible evidence in the record sufficient to support thé verdict of guilty.

In relation to the contentions on behalf of John and Jerome Mandella and Dominic Lampone that the circuit court erred in overruling their pleas in abatement, it suffices to state that, upon reviewing the evidence introduced at the preliminary hearing, it is our conclusion that there was enough evidence to warrant the charge against each defendant of murder and also assault with intent to. murder. At said hearing no evidence was offered by defendants to establish their respective alibis upon which they subsequently relied on the trial. On the other hand there was evidence to warrant finding (briefly stated) *505 that during the night of March 12, 1946, after three radios and a fur coat had been stolen from John Mandella’s home in Milwaukee and hauled to Kenosha in a truck occupied by Mike and Joe Farina and Tony Bruno, the defendants Fazio, Lam-pone, and Jerome Mandella, riding in an automobile operated by John Mandella, jointly participated and co-operated, — after John Mandella drove in such manner as to compel the halting of the truck in which the Farinas and Tony Bruno were riding, —in endeavoring to compel them to admit the theft and disposition of the radios; and that in the course of the joint activities of all defendants to that end, they participated in brutally mistreating and threatening the Farinas, and while doing so, with Lampone in the driver’s seat of the truck and Joe Farina on the floor in the rear part thereof, and Mike Farina attempting to come to his aid by entering the front right door thereof, the latter was killed and Joe Farina was seriously wounded by shots fired at them by Fazio. Consequently the court did not err in overruling the pleas in abatement.

In support of the defendants’ contentions that the circuit court erred in denying their motions for a directed verdict and to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial’on the ground that there was no credible evidence sufficient tO' support the verdicts of guilty, each defendant claims that Joe Farina’s testimony is wholly uncorroborated in its essentials and is insufficient to sustain a conviction, and is even contradicted by other state’s witnesses; but that the testimony on behalf of each defendant is corroborated in every essential detail and maintained his innocence at all times.

It is true that the evidence necessary to support the jury’s verdict of guilty as to each defendant consists largely of the testimony of Joe Farina and that his testimony is somewhat contradicted by other state’s witnesses in a few respects which are, however, not fatal or even so serious as to render his testimony in relation to the facts essential to sustain the verdict and judgment incredible or insufficient. He and- Tony Bruno are *506 the only surviving witnesses as to the concerted acts and conduct of the defendants which led up to and culminated in the shooting by Fazio of the bullets which resulted in wounding Joe Farina and the killing of his brother Mike. Until shortly prior thereto Tony Bruno had been with them, but, as will appear from the evidence as to facts hereinafter stated, he escaped somehow unscathed before the shots were fired and showed up in Milwaukee early the following day not seriously injured.

By the defendants themselves there was no testimony whatever given or introduced as to the immediate events which preceded or occurred at the time of the attack and shooting of Mike and Joe Farina^. On the contrary, as their defense, each defendant pleaded and offered proof solely in support of an alibi.

On the trial there was testimony by Joe Farina, which, if the jury was satisfied of the truth thereof beyond a reasonable doubt, warranted the jury in finding facts to the following ef-feet. About 3 o’clock a. m. on March 13, 1946, while Mike and Joe Farina were in a Plymouth panel truck, with the painted lettering JA. C. Window Cleaning Company,” on a highway in Kenosha county, Mike was killed and his brother Joe was seriously wounded by shots fired at them by the defendant Fazio. In the early evening of March 12,1946, the Farina brothers, — accompanied by Tony Bruno, — had driven to the home of John Mandella in Milwaukee and there they stole three radios and a fur coat and drove to Kenosha, where Mike sold the radios. Several hours later they started back toward Milwaukee, with Joe driving the truck; and while still in Kenosha county, the truck was forced to the side of the road and compelled to stop by a Chrysler car known to be customarily used by John Mandella. Thereupon, as Joe Farina testified,—

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mandella v. State, 29 N.W.2d 723, 251 Wis. 502, 1947 Wisc. LEXIS 409 (Wis. 1947).

29 N.W.2d 723 (Mandella v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cranmore v. State
271 N.W.2d 402 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1978)
State v. Paegelow
202 N.W.2d 916 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1973)
Lampkins v. State
187 N.W.2d 164 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1971)
State v. DiMaggio
182 N.W.2d 466 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1971)
Irby v. State
182 N.W.2d 251 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1971)
Embry v. State
174 N.W.2d 521 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1970)
State v. Zwicker
164 N.W.2d 512 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1969)
State v. Laabs
161 N.W.2d 249 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1968)
Jung v. State
145 N.W.2d 684 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1966)
Cullen v. State
133 N.W.2d 284 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1965)
Dascenzo v. State
132 N.W.2d 231 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1965)
State v. Nutley
129 N.W.2d 155 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1964)
State Ex Rel. Marachowsky v. Kerl
45 N.W.2d 668 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1951)