{
  "id": 5234319,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Angelo Petitti, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Petitti",
  "decision_date": "1929-12-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 19771",
  "first_page": "625",
  "last_page": "635",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "337 Ill. 625"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 728,
    "char_count": 20668,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.779,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.7745355136015e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4956190496048225
    },
    "sha256": "7722ba70074411bf9994cbfb57d5d6a7a32dd9bd27c4f3dd4ed6de324f97515a",
    "simhash": "1:c71dec93fa6c30ba",
    "word_count": 3783
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:03:38.782033+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Angelo Petitti, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Stone\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff in error, with one Andrew Capellano and Tony Capellano, his son, were indicted in the criminal court of Cook county for the crime of kidnapping William Ranieri for ransom. At the trial plaintiff in error and Andrew Capellano were found guilty and Tony Capellano was found not guilty. Plaintiff in error brings the cause here for review.\nWilliam Ranieri testified that he was ten years of age; that on the 6th of September, 1928, about 3:30, while he was playing on the school grounds of the St. Genevieve school, in the city of Chicago, a car drove into the alley back of the school with two men in it, one of whom asked him where Cicero street was, and he told them where it was; that while he was talking one of the men who had gotten out of the car seized him and pulled him into the car and told him he was going to take him away; that this man struck him in the eye, knocked him down to the floor of the car in front of the back seat and put his feet on him; that the car drove away swiftly; that they drove to a farm near Bourbonnais, Illinois, where they told him to get out, and that he got out in the yard and there saw a man whom he identified at the trial as Andrew Capellano. He testified that his eye was swelling and they got something to put on it, and the men left right away, telling him that they would give him some money if he wanted some to get him a pair of pants, as he was dressed in overalls. He testified that after the men left, one of the Capellanes fixed his eye and sent him up-stairs to bed with the boy, Tony; that his eye was swelled shut for more than seven days; that he was required to stay up-stairs for thirteen days; that they brought food to him and that he wanted them to call his father, but they did not do so although they had a telephone and he told them who he was and where he lived and gave them the telephone number. He. further stated that after he had been there thirteen days he was taken away around 7:00 o\u2019clock in the evening by the same men who brought him; that they rode about three hours and then the men put him out on the road somewhere near Joliet; that he saw a gasoline station with a light in it and went there and told them who he was; that the man at the gasoline station called up the deputy sheriff, and he came in the machine and took him to Joliet and his father came and got him.\nAlex F. Ranieri, father of the boy, testified that his son did not come home the night of September 6, 1928; that the next morning, about 10:00 o\u2019clock, he received a call from somebody who told him they wanted $60,000 to bring his boy back; that he went looking for the plaintiff in error during that day but did not succeed in finding him until about 5 :3o that evening and told him his boy had been kidnapped; that Petitti told him they would call him up again and to give them his (Petitti\u2019s) number and tell them to call him but didn\u2019t tell him who would call; that he was at Petitti\u2019s place about fifteen minutes and went home about half-past six; that a short time after he got home he received a telephone call from someone whom he didn\u2019t know, and that he told them to call up Petitti and gave them his telephone number; that they asked him if he had any friends, and he gave them Petitti\u2019s name and telephone number and also that of Frank Calabr\u00e1ce but did not give the latter\u2019s telephone number; that later on that evening Petitti called him and said, \u201cI got to meet this fellow at Sixty-third and Cottage Grove at 10:00 o\u2019clock in the morning;\u201d that the witness asked if he should go along, and that at first Petitti agreed and then said, \u201cMaybe he don\u2019t want to see you; you better not come; I will call you back at 11:00 o\u2019clock.\u201d Witness testified that Petitti did not call him the next morning but that he called Petitti at 11:00 o\u2019clock but could not get him but reached him on the telephone at 12 :oo o\u2019clock, and Petitti said, \u201cI just got back; come over to the place; I will explain;\u201d that he went to Petitti\u2019s place at 1:00 o\u2019clock and Petitti said, \u201cThey want $60,000;\u201d that witness told him he could not raise $60,000 \u2014 that he did not have it; that he had $1000 and would give them that; that Petitti replied, \u201cYou- know they took a chance to take twenty-five years in Joliet,\u201d and said they would not take $1000. Petitti said, \u201cThey know you got $180,000 worth of bonds.\u201d Witness testified that he then told Petitti that if he would do nothing he would go and see Frank Calabrace, and that Petitti offered to go with him; that they went to see Calabrace and told him what happened, and Calabrace said that if Petitti isn\u2019t going to do anything he would try and see if he could find the boy.. Ranieri testified that at that time Petitti told him he had seen the fellows that morning at 10:00 o\u2019clock and talked to them; that he did not say where; that the witness asked him but he would not tell. This was Saturday afternoon,, the 8th of September. Witness testified that he saw Petitti nearly every day thereafter for the next week; that on the following Thursday he saw Petitti at his place and told him he didn\u2019t want to have any trouble; that the \u201claw\u201d (meaning the police) were over at his house; that he said to Petitti, \u201cDo you know where the kid is?\u201d that Petitti told him he could have the boy back in an hour if left to him, saying, \u201cMaybe I can get it back in an hour, but I want two days\u2019 time,\u201d and told the witness that he would call him the next day about 12:00 o\u2019clock. He testified that at the time of this conversation Petitti made two telephone calls, giving a Pullman number for one and a VanBuren number for the other, but the witness did not know whom he called and that Petitti did not talk to anybody on either call. Ranieri testified that he told Petitti he would give $5000 to get the boy back, and Petitti said, \u201cWhat is the difference \u2014 five, six or seven?\u201d that the witness told him he would have to borrow $4000, and that Petitti replied he would call him the next day at noon, which was Friday, the 14th; that the witness gave Petitti his brother\u2019s telephone number because the officers were at his house and told him to call his brother. He testified that he did not see Petitti again until after he was arrested; that he saw him at the police station when he was arrested on the evening of September 14; that he talked with him the following Sunday at the police station, and he said to Petitti, \u201cIf you call up and tell them, call where the kid is, I will go out and tell Captain Dougherty that you and I will go out and bring the kid back;\u201d that Petitti said, \u201cWhat? Do you want me to get fifty years in jail by going there and calling?\u201d that Petitti was willing to go with the witness to get the boy but that Captain Dougherty would not let them go alone but told them he would go with them, but that Petitti refused to do this; that after Petitti had been removed to another police station he had another conversation with him in which Petitti told him to get his wife and brother and he would tell them where they could get the kid. He testified on cross-examination that he thought the voice that called him the day after the boy disappeared was Petitti\u2019s, but he was not sure.\nNick Ranieri, brother of Alex, testified that Petitti arranged with Alex to meet the witness at 7312 Diversey on September 14; that on that day he went to this place looking for Petitti; that a lady came to the door and told him Petitti had just left there about ten minutes before; that the witness returned home and received another call from Petitti, and as result of that call met him the same day at Diversey and Harlem avenues, about a block from the place where he first went to meet him. The witness testified that he asked about the boy, and Petitti said: \u201cThe kid is all right; don\u2019t worry; a good thing you come this afternoon, otherwise the kid would be in St. Louis tonight.\u201d The witness testified that he asked Petitti why he didn\u2019t send the boy home and let his father fix it up, to which Petitti replied he would do the best he could but it could not be done without money; that the witness inquired as to what the cost would be, and Petitti replied, \u201cAround $8000;\u201d that the witness asked him why he could not make it cheaper, and he replied, \u201cI will tell you the best we can do; we can straighten this up for $5000, $2000 to be paid within a few days.\u201d Witness testified that he replied that that would be all right and he would try and get the money, and Petitti told him to get the money and meet him at the same place on the morning of the 15th, at 10:00 o\u2019clock; that the witness returned home and talked to his brother, Alex, and then went to see Louis Scully about borrowing $4000 for Alex. Petitti was arrested during the evening of that day.\nJames F. Dougherty, John P. Ryan, James L. Mooney and Thomas Burns, police officers, testified that Petitti was arrested, on the night of September 14; that when brought to the police station he stated, in the presence of Alex Ranieri and others, that he didn\u2019t know the Ranieries, never had met them, and knew nothing about the kidnapping until shortly before he was arrested, and that he denied being at 7312 Diversey avenue.\nJennie Arquilla testified that she resides at 7312 Diversey, and that on September 14 Petitti came to her house and asked to use the telephone.\nThomas Dominick, an uncle of the Ranieri boy, testified that he saw Petitti at the police station and talked with him and asked him to let the boy out and tell the witness where the boy was being kept; that Petitti replied that he didn\u2019t know, but said, \u201cIf you will get my wife or brother down here I will talk to them and see if the boy will be released;\u201d that the witness asked him where the boy was, and he replied, \u201cWell, I will have to get them fellows.\u201d Witness testified that pursuant to this conversation he called a telephone number given, to him by Petitti; that some woman answered and said she would see; that about a half hour after, Petitti\u2019s wife and brother came in and talked to Petitti, but witness could not hear what was said. Dominick testified that he was told by Petitti\u2019s brother not to tell the police anything; that his brother said, \u201cYou fellows are talking too much; why don\u2019t you keep quiet?\u201d\nPlaintiff in error took the stand and testified that he conducted a soft drink parlor at 1525 Polk street; that on the 7th of September Alex Ranieri came to his place about 6:30 or 7:00 o\u2019clock in the evening and told him that his boy was lost; that this was the first he had heard of it. ITe testified that he told Ranieri to go to the police, and he replied he didn\u2019t want to go to the police- \u2014 he didn\u2019t want to let anybody know about it; that Ranieri told him he had received a telephone call and that the party calling wanted $60,000 to return the boy and asked him if he had a friend, and that Ranieri told him he gave the party talking Petitti\u2019s name. He testified that in this conversation Ranieri told him that in case he was called up, to find out what the parties had to say; that on that same night he got a telephone call asking if he was a friend of Ranieri\u2019s, telling him that they had the Ranieri boy and demanding-$60,000 to bring the boy back. Pie testified that he told them Ranieri didn\u2019t have $60,000, and that if they would come to his place of business they could talk it over; that they then hung up. He admitted that he did not call Ranieri that night on receipt of the call, but denied that Ranieri had requested him to do so or that he had said he would but that Ranieri was to come back Saturday to see him. He testified that Calabrace told him Ranieri was willing to pay $5000 to get the boy back, and that when called again by the kidnappers he told them that Ranieri would pay $5000; that they demanded $7000, and that he told this to Ranieri\u2019s brother, Nick. He testified that the next day he received another call from the same parties and told them that he had seen Ranieri and that all he could give was $5000, and that Ranieri told him that he would give them $5000 now and $2000 a couple of weeks later, and they told him that was all right \u2014 that they would bring the boy back; that the next day, Friday, the 14th, he was called again, and the parties talking told him they would bring the boy back for $5000; that he called Nick Ranieri and told him this and arranged to meet him at Diversey and Harlem avenues; that he went to that corner and that Nick was not there; that he went to the Arquilla house to call his wife to tell her he would be home and to have supper ready; that he called Nick again and told him he had been over there but didn\u2019t see him, and that they went back and met at the corner of Diversey and Harlem avenues but did not see anybody and returned home. He denied the conversations testified to by the State\u2019s witnesses as occurring at the police station or that he offered to return the boy if he were released. He admitted he told the police officers he didn\u2019t know Ranieri but stated that Ranieri told him the night before to tell them that; that he didn\u2019t want to give any information to the officers because Ranieri didn\u2019t want him to. He categorically denied having anything to do with the kidnapping of the boy or attempting to collect the ransom.\nFred Petitti, brother of plaintiff in error, testified that he was at the police station with plaintiff in error\u2019s wife but they were not allowed to see plaintiff in error. He denied that he had any conversation with him or that he told Dominick Ranieri and others that they were talking too much. In rebuttal James Dougherty, police officer, was re-called and testified that he was acquainted with Fred Petitti and saw him at the police station on Saturday, the 15th of September, and permitted him to talk with plaintiff in error.\nAlttillio Scalzitti testified that he was at the police station on Friday or Saturday and saw Dominick there and saw him telephone to someone; that he thereafter saw plaintiff in error\u2019s wife and his brother, Fred Petitti, come into the station. Plaintiff in error again took the stand and testified that his brother Fred was not out to see him but that his brother Joe came out to see him.\nThomas Burns, a police officer who arrested plaintiff in error, was called in rebuttal and testified that at the time of the arrest Petitti was at 1525 Polk street; that the witness was there about ten minutes at the time of the arrest; that he looked about the place and found no pop bottles, cigars or cigarettes though he did not have a search warrant to search' the place. This was all of the testimony in the case.\nThe indictment in this case was for kidnapping for ransom. The act to prevent and punish kidnapping for ransom, approved and in force May 11, 1901, (Cahill\u2019s Stat. 1929, p. 956,) provides: \u201cEvery person who shall willfully, unlawfully and forcibly seize and secretly confine within this State * * * any person against his will or against the will of the parent, guardian or legal custodian of such person, for the purpose of extorting ransom or money or other valuable thing or concession from such person, his parent, guardian or legal custodian, * * * shall, upon conviction, suffer death, or be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for life or for any term not less than five years.\u201d\nCounsel for plaintiff in error contend that if the evidence in this case shows any offense at all it is that of accessory after the fact, and argues that since this is so and an accessory after the fact is not a principal and cannot be charged with the principal crime, the crime charged was not proved against plaintiff in error. This argument overlooks the provisions of the act against kidnapping for ransom. This crime contains three elements: (1) The unlawful seizure; (2) secreting; and (3) the extortion of ransom or other valuable thing or concession from such person so seized and secreted, or his parent, guardian or legal custodian. Anyone having to do with the perpetration of these three acts, or any of them, is guilty of the crime of kidnapping for ransom. If plaintiff in error attempted to collect the ransom he is equally guilty with those who forcibly seized and secreted the complaining witness. His guilt is that of principal and not accessory after the fact. This contention of plaintiff in error cannot be sustained.\nIt is also contended that the evidence does not support the verdict. We have set out the evidence with unusual fullness in this opinion because of the character of the crime charged against plaintiff in error. If the witnesses for the State are to be believed it has been clearly proved that plaintiff in error was assisting in collecting the ransom rather than as a friend of Ranieri. His denial of acquaintance with Ranieri or knowledge of the kidnapping until shortly before his arrest is not the usual conduct of an innocent man when arrested on a serious charge. The jury heard the witnesses. It was within their province to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. They were justified on this record in returning a verdict of guilty against plaintiff in error.\nCounsel for plaintiff in error also contend that the verdict was the result of prejudicial conduct and argument on the part of the State\u2019s attorney. Numerous instances of prejudicial statements in argument have been cited in the briefs. As to some of them the court sustained objections and as to others the objections were overruled. It would serve no useful purpose in this opinion to lengthen it to the extent required, to discuss all of these charges of prejudicial conduct on the part of the State\u2019s attorney. Much that is complained of grew out of interchanges of personalities between counsel for the accused and the assistant State\u2019s attorney. Many pages of the abstract are devoted to detailing indulgence by counsel on both sides in remarks and rejoinders thereto that ought not appear in the trial of a lawsuit. Counsel for plaintiff in error here, though not his counsel in the trial court, can scarcely contend that their client is entitled to a reversal on the ground of prejudicial conduct on the part of the assistant State\u2019s attorney as to remarks which were but a reply to improper remarks of counsel for the accused.\nAt least one of the statements of the State\u2019s attorney relating to another criminal case was erroneous and in a case closer on the facts might constitute prejudicial error. On a review of the entire record in this case, however, we are of the opinion that we would not be justified in reversing this judgment for this error.\nCounsel also contend that it was error to characterize plaintiff in error as a blackmailer and blackh\u00e1nd leader. While objection to this argument was sustained, counsel had a right to construe what they believed to be the State\u2019s evidence. If the testimony of the State\u2019s witnesses is to be believed, plaintiff in error was engaged in a species of extortion. The testimony of Ranieri that plaintiff in error said he could return the boy in an hour is in the record. The argument of the State\u2019s attorney that Petitti was a leader among those engaged in the business of kidnapping, whether correct or erroneous, was his construction of that evidence and within the province of legitimate argument. While blackhand and blackmail are not identical in meaning with kidnapping, we would not be justified in reversing this judgment on account of such characterization by counsel.\nThe only complaint of errors occurring on the trial relate to the conduct of counsel. No objection is raised as to instructions given or refused or as to rulings on the admission of evidence. The jury were justified in finding plaintiff in error guilty. The penalty in such case may be death, life imprisonment or imprisonment for any term of years not less than five. The jury fixed the punishment of plaintiff in error at twenty-five years in the penitentiary. This verdict does not indicate that the jury were swayed by prejudice or passion in arriving at their verdict.\nThere is no error in this record requiring reversal of the judgment, and the same is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Stone"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Benedict J. Short, and Nash & Ahern, (Michael J. Ahern, of counsel,) for plaintiff in error.",
      "Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General, John A. Swanson, State\u2019s Attorney, and James B. Searcy, (Henry T. Chace, Jr., Edward E. Wilson, and Charles J. Mueller, of counsel,) for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 19771.\nThe People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Angelo Petitti, Plaintiff in Error.\nOpinion filed December 20, 1929\nRehearing denied Feb. 11, 1930.\nBenedict J. Short, and Nash & Ahern, (Michael J. Ahern, of counsel,) for plaintiff in error.\nOscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General, John A. Swanson, State\u2019s Attorney, and James B. Searcy, (Henry T. Chace, Jr., Edward E. Wilson, and Charles J. Mueller, of counsel,) for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0625-01",
  "first_page_order": 625,
  "last_page_order": 635
}