The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Henry A. Cassidy, Appellant

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Henry A. Cassidy, Appellant. Upon the trial of an indictment for arson it appeared that the building set on fire was in a block with four others, all of which were connected, but occupied by different families. The prosecution was permitted to prove, under objection and exception, the location and occupancy of the other buildings. Held, no error; that this evidence was competent for the purpose of describing the theatre of the C"ime and the conditions and circumstances surrounding it. A map of the building set on fire and of the adjacent and surrounding premises was also put in evidence by the prosecution, under objection and exception. Held, no error. The defendant, while under arrest, in the presence of several persons, made confessions to the inspector of the police force in the city of Mew York, where the fire occurred. The latter and others present swore that the confessions were voluntarily made. Defendant swore they were made “under the influence of fear, produced by threats.” The jury was instructed to disregard them, if so obtained. These confessions were the main evidence connecting defendant with the crime. A verdict of guilty was rendered. Held, that the evidence was properly received, as the jury must have found the confessions to have been voluntarily made; and that they were sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt. A letter written by defendant, while under arrest, to his mother, which contained statements tending to show his guilt, was received in evidence, under objection and exception. Held, no error. (Argued April 21, 1892; decided May 3,1892.) Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made May 11,1891, which affirmed a judgment of the Westchester County Court of Sessions convicting the defendant of the crime of arson in the first degree. The following is the opinion in full: “ The defendant was indicted for arson in setting fire to an inhabited building belonging to the New York Catholic Protectory. There was no dispute at the trial that the fire was of incendiary origin. The proof to show that the defendant was the author of the fire consisted mainly of his confessions. He denied his guilt, and gave evidence, mostly by his relatives, for the purpose of showing insanity and an alibi. The trial judge submitted all the evidence to the jury in a full and fair charge, to which no exception whatever was taken. The evidence was abundant to authorize a verdict of guilty, and we have only to consider the exceptions taken during the trial to rulings upon questions of evidence. We have carefully examined these exceptions, and it is entirely clear that none of them were well taken. “ The building set on fire was in a block with four other buildings, all connected together, but occupied by different families. The district attorney was permitted to show the location and occupancy of these other buildings, and in this it is claimed error was committed. There was no possible harm in this evidence to the defendant, and it was competent for the purpose of describing the theatre of the crime and the conditions and circumstances which surrounded it. “ The defendant’s counsel objected to a map of the building set on fire and of the adjacent and surrounding premises which •was given in evidence on the part of the prosecution. The map was competent to bring before the jury the precise location of the building set on fire and’ its surroundings. “ The confessions of the defendant were made while he was under arrest, in the presence of several persons, to ' Inspector Byrnes of the Hew York police force. The inspector and other persons present testified that the confessions were voluntarily made. The defendant testified that they were made ‘ under the influence of fear, produced by threats,’ and hence it was claimed on his behalf that they were not competent under section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. “ The jurors were instructed to disregard .the confessions if thus obtained, and they must have found that they were not thus induced; that they were voluntarily made and reliable, and hence they were properly in the case and were sufficient as the basis of the verdict. “ The defendant while under arrest wrote a letter to his mother which contained statements tending to show his guilt. We can see no possible ground for the exclusion of the letter as evidence against hipa. “ There are other exceptions to the rulings of the trial judge, but they are manifestly groundless and even less important than those we have specially noticed. “ The judgment should be affirmed.” Frederick W. Sherman for appellant. W. Popham Platt for respondent. [MAJORITY — Earl, Oh. J.,] Earl, Oh. J., reads for affirmance. All concur. Judgment affirmed.