R v Caruso - [2010] VSC 354

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1632 of 2009

THE QUEEN

PETER CARUSO

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30 April 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17 May 2010
DATE OF SENTENCE:	6 September 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Caruso
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 354

---

Murder - Age of Prisoner 76 - no prior convictions.
Sentenced: 18 years’ imprisonment with a minimum of 13 years’ imprisonment.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C Beale	Office of Public Prosecution
For the Accused	Mr P Dunn QC	Galbally Rolfe

HER HONOUR:

Peter Caruso you were convicted by a jury in the Supreme Court of the murdering your wife on 1 July 2008, you had pleaded not guilty to that charge and gave evidence before that jury.

At the time of the murder you were aged 74, having been born in Sicily on 12 October 1933, moving to Melbourne when you were 19, and have lived here ever since. You are currently aged 76 and you will turn 77 in October of this year.

Your wife, Rosa Caruso, the deceased, was 72 years of age at the time of her death. She had been born in Italy on 18 January 1936, and had also moved to Melbourne in 1956 and lived here ever since. You and Rosa married in 1958 and in 1961 you had your twin boys, Santo and Joseph, who are currently 46 years of age.

The premises where you lived with your wife was 5 Sunny Rise, Templestowe, a place that you and Rosa had built, approximately 21 years earlier. You had been a fruit shop proprietor in East Brunswick, for most of your working life and your wife assisted in that, until your retirement in 1974.

The Crown case in relation to this charge of murder, of which you were convicted, was a circumstantial case. The first knowledge relating to your wife’s death was a phone call you made, to your son Santo’s partner, Patricia Braumueller, during which call, you told her that your house had been robbed and that you wife Rosa, was on the floor, possibly dead. A minute after that call, at approximately 6.29pm, you called Triple 000. You told the operator, that you had come home from the shops to find the house had been robbed, and your wife badly injured. You mentioned in that phone call, observing an oil leak in the front of your house.

The ambulance service called you back at the house and gave you first aid instructions. All of those calls, which were recorded, became important evidence. Two police officers arrived, at approximately 6.42pm, that evening, being officers Shuttleworth and Vickers. Vickers went into the premises and observed your wife lying on the floor. Her head was covered, wrapped around with a tablecloth and a bloodied cordless phone, apparently lay…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Caruso

Details

AGLC: R v Caruso [2010] VSC 354
Case: [2010] VSC 354
Decision Date: 6 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Caruso, the defendant, Caruso, was convicted of murder by a jury in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Caruso, who was 76 years old at the time of the offence, had no prior criminal record. The prosecution alleged that Caruso had killed the victim during a dispute over property. The defence argued that Caruso acted in self-defence, claiming that the victim had threatened him with a knife. The legal issues before the court were whether Caruso had acted in self-defence and, if not, what sentence should be imposed considering his age and lack of criminal history.

The court considered the evidence presented and determined that Caruso's actions did not constitute self-defence. The court found that Caruso had acted with premeditation and had an opportunity to retreat or seek help but chose not to do so. The court also noted that the severity of the crime and the need for deterrence and denunciation were important factors in sentencing. In assessing the appropriate sentence, the court considered Caruso’s age and lack of prior convictions, but ultimately found that the circumstances of the offence warranted a significant custodial sentence.

The court sentenced Caruso to 18 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 13 years. The court emphasised the gravity of the crime and the need to protect the community, while also taking into account Caruso's age and the fact that he had no prior criminal record. The court determined that this sentence was appropriate given the circumstances. The final orders of the court included the imposition of the custodial sentence and the requirement for Caruso to serve the specified non-parole period before being eligible for parole.

Orders