Court Opinion

ID: 9448914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:49:38.175663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:36.560096
License: Public Domain

LUMBARD, Chief Judge
(concurring and dissenting).
As I believe that the jury may well have thought that knowledge by Mac-chia of what was afoot was sufficient to convict, I concur in the result which permits a retrial of the case against him. But I disagree with my brethren insofar as Judge FRIENDLY’S opinion implies that there was not enough evidence from which the jury could conclude that Macchia was guilty as an aider and abettor in the sense of wishing to see Gar-guilo succeed and assisting him by his actions. I think there was sufficient evidence to support a verdict of guilty upon a proper charge from the court.
There can be little doubt that when Macchia, together with Garguilo, visited Villari at his printing shop at 537 West 53rd Street, Manhattan, and Della Monica at his photography shop on New Utrecht Avenue in Brooklyn, they must have thought that Macehia was interested in Garguilo’s business. Each of them saw him at least twice. The presence of a friend is not only an encouragement to the one who is accompanied but it may also be of assistance in persuading others to be of help. From these four or five visits which Macchia made with Gar-guilo to the business places of Villari and Della Monica, and from all the surrounding circumstances, and the admissions of Macchia, it seems to me that it was a question for the jury as to whether Mac-chia’s accompanying Garguilo did not contribute to the likelihood of the success of Garguilo’s efforts.
In Hicks v. United States, 150 U.S. 442, 450, 14 S.Ct. 144, 37 L.Ed. 1137 (1893), the Supreme Court recognized that presence without action may constitute aiding and abetting if there is evidence that the defendant had a purpose to aid but did not act only because action proved to be unnecessary and it is shown that the presence was pursuant to an understanding. Here there was enough evidence for the jury to infer that Mac-chia was going along to be of help. There was also enough evidence to infer an agreement between Macchia and Gar-guilo to commit the counterfeiting offense. In short, there was evidence of purpose and conspiracy which, if the jury had been properly charged, would require an affirmance.
As Judge FRIENDLY says, if Mac-chia had said one single word of encouragement to Villari or Della Monica, it would have been enough. I think the jury could construe his mere presence on these occasions as tantamount to such encouragement. It seems to me naive to suppose that the kind of company and moral (or immoral) support which Mac-chia gave to Garguilo by being with him was not of the kind which would help Garguilo in his business with Vil-lari and Della Monica. While there is nothing to show that Macchia might have been a hoodlum or bodyguard, his presence certainly rendered it less likely that Villari or Della Monica might report the matter to the police. Moreover, Macchia’s presence gave Garguilo an ally and at least a possible witness if any dispute had arisen. It is precisely because two persons together are more formidable that two persons acting separately in carrying out any illegal design that conspiracy has been made a crime even though it may not succeed.
In my opinion there was enough evidence to permit the jury to decide on a proper charge whether or not Macchia was guilty as an aider and abettor.