State v. Currie

State v. Currie. Habeas Corpus. (Decided May 31, 1911. 56 South. 735.) 1. Extradition; Requisition. — The requisition in extradition proceedings need not set out an authenticated copy of the law of the state which the alleged fugitive is charged with having violated. 2. Habeas Corpus; Detention Under Requisition; Return. — Where a petitioner is held under requisition papers and brings habeas corpus for his discharge, a return showing a warrant from the governor of this state as well as the requisition papers from the governor of another state, each reciting the jurisdictional facts, and that petitioner is charged with crime, makes out a prima facie case of lawful detention which can only be overcome by proof that the petitioner is not a fugitive from justice, or that the process was void. The sheriff is not required to prove a law of the other state covering the crime charged. On certificate from the Appellate Court. Habeas corpus by W. M. Curries. From an order discharging petitioner, the State appealed to the. Court of Appeals, which certifies questions to the Supreme Court. Questions answered. See, also, 2 Ala. App. 351, 56 South. 736. In the above-entitled case, the judges of the Court of Appeals being unable to reach a unanimous conclusion or decision, the judges of said court, pursuant to the provision of the statute in such case made and provided, hereby certify to the Supreme Court of Alabama the following questions of law as to which the said judges differ:: “On a hearing of the matter presented by a petition for the writ of habeas corpus, the sheriff, to. whom the writ was addressed, offered in evidence, in support of his return: (1) A demand or requisition for the petitioner, made by tbe Governor of tbe State of Oklahoma upon tbe Governor of tbe State of Alabama, which recited that petitioner stands charged with tbe crime of embezzlement, committed in tbe county of Muskogee, in said State of Oklahoma, and that be bad fled from tbe justice of said State and taken refuge in tbe State of Alabama; (2) a copy of an affidavit, made before a justice of tbe peace in and for said county of Muskogee, State of Oklahoma, charging that petitioner bad unlawfully, intentionally, wrongfully, and feloniously embezzled a stated amount of money which had come into bis possession while acting as manager and agent of tbe Leeds Woolen Mills, in said Muskogee county, which affidavit was certified as authentic by tbe Governor of tbe State of Oklahoma; and (8) tbe warrant of tbe Governor of tbe State of Alabama, authorizing tbe arrest of tbe petitioner. Petitioner objected to tbe evidence offered in support of tbe sheriff’s return upon tbe grounds in substance, that, for aught that is shown thereby, petitioner has not been guilty of any violation of any law of tbe State of Oklahoma, and that tbe evidence did not show that petitioner bad violated any criminal law of tbe State of Oklahoma. “Question 1. On tbe facts disclosed by tbe evidence, is it shown that tbe sheriff is entitled to bold tbe petitioner, in tbe absence of proof of tbe law of tbe State of Oklahoma which petitioner was charged with having violated? “Question 2. Is the proof offered sufficient to show that petitioner was legally held by tbe sheriff, in tbe absence of proof showing that embezzlement constitutes a crime under the law of the State of Oklahoma? “The above questions are submitted as abstract propositions, as directed by the statute; reference being made to the case and manner in which the questions arise for the convenience of the Supreme Court.” Robert C. Brickell, Attorney General, Percy, Banners & Burr, and A. F. Fite, for the State. For briefs in this case see State v. Currie, 2 Ala. App. 251. F. E. Blackburn, and Thompson & Thompson, for petitioner. For briefs in this case see State v. Currie, 2 Ala. App. 251. [MAJORITY — ANDERSON, J.] ANDERSON, J. This court has heretofore held that upon habeas corpus, where the petitioner is detained under extradition proceedings, the warrant of the Governor of this State, reciting all the jurisdictional facts, makes a prima facie case of a legal detention.— Singleton v. State, 144 Ala. 104, 42 South. 23; State v. Mohr, 73 Ala. 503. This is not conclusive, however, and the defendant should be permitted to show that the process is void, or that he is not a fugitive; and if he does this he would be entitled to his discharge. — Barriere v. State, 142 Ala. 72, 39 South. 55. Nor is it necessary for the demanding Governor to set out in the requisition an authentic copy of the law which the petitioner is charged with having violated, as the law does not require this, and the Governor of this State may waive the authentic copy. — Roberts v. Reiley, 116 U. S. 80, 6 Sup. Ct. 291, 29 L. Ed. 544. The sheriff having shown a warrant from the Governor of Alabama, as well as the requisition papers from the Governor of Oklahoma, each reciting the jurisdictional facts, and that the petitioner was charged with a crime, lie made out a prima facie case of lawful detention, and wbicb could only be overcome by some proof on the part of the petitioner that he was not a fugitive, or that the process was void. — Barriere and Singleton Cases, supra; Compton v. State, 152 Ala. 68, 44 South. 685. We do not think that the sheriff had to prove a law of Oklahoma covering embezzlement; he made out a case of lawful detention upon the proof offered by him. Simpson, McClellan, and Mayfield, JJ., concur.