State Ex Rel. Gildar v. Kriss, 27.

Citation62 A.2d 568
Decision Date08 December 1948
Docket NumberNo. 27.,27.
PartiesSTATE ex rel. GILDAR v. KRISS, Captain of Detectives.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

62 A.2d 568

STATE ex rel. GILDAR
v.
KRISS, Captain of Detectives.

No. 27.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Dec. 8, 1948.


Appeal from the Baltimore City Court; Herman M. Moser, Judge.

Habeas corpus proceeding by the State of Maryland, on the relation of Sam Gildar, for release from the custody of Henry J. Kriss, Captain of Detectives of Baltimore, under an extradition warrant. From an order remanding petitioner to respondent's custody, petitioner appeals.

Affirmed.

62 A.2d 569

Samuel K. Dennis and Ellis Levin, both of Baltimore, for appellant.

Hall Hammond, Atty. Gen., and William J. O'Donnell, Asst. State's Atty., of Baltimore (Harrison L. Winter, Asst. Atty. Gen. and J. Bernard Wells, State's Atty., of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Before MARBURY, C. J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON, and MARKELL, JJ.

MARKELL, Judge.

This is an appeal, by leave granted by this court (Code, Art. 42, sec. 3C), from an order remanding petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus granted pursuant to the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. Art. 41, sec. 22. The right of appeal in habeas corpus cases ‘shall not apply to any case unless the petitioner is detained for or confined as the result of a prosecution for a criminal offense.’ Art. 42, sec. 3D, Acts of 1945, ch. 702. In the instant case petitioner is detained in Maryland, for extradition from Maryland, as the result of a prosecution for conspiracy to violate the prohibition laws of North Carolina. Ordinarily a statute is not applicable extraterritorially, but only to acts done within the jurisdiction, though any extradition statute is an exception to this generalization. At any rate petitioner is detained in Maryland, as the result in Maryland of a prosecution for a criminal offense. We think the right of appeal under Art. 42, secs. 3C and 3D, is applicable.

The case presents questions as to the constitutionality and application of section 18 of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (Art. 41, sec. 18; Acts of 1937, ch. 179), which provides: ‘(Extradition of Persons Not Present in Demanding State at Time of Commission of Crime.) The Governor of this state may also surrender, on demand of the Executive Authority of any other state, any person in this state charged in such other state in the manner provided in Section 15 with committing an act in this state, or in a third state, intentionally resulting in a crime in the state whose Executive Authority is making the demand, and the provisions of this subtitle not otherwise inconsistent, shall apply to such cases, even though the accused was not in that state at the time of the commission of the crime, and has not fled therefrom.'

Petitioner is in custody, pursuant to a warrant of the Governor of Maryland, to be delivered to an agent of the State of North Carolina. From a North Carolina warrant and also from affidavits, all of which are part of the demand of the Governor of North Carolina to the Governor of Maryland, it clearly appears that it is charged that petitioner and others on or about July 23, 1947, ‘as well before as after said date,’ in Guilford County, North Carolina, conspired to violate the laws of North Carolina, ‘by engaging and carrying on the business of transporting, handling, dealing in and selling spiritous liquors, both at wholesale and retail, and * * * in carrying out * * * said conspiracy,’ they on July 21, 1947, purchased in Baltimore, Maryland, 215 cases of such liquors and transported them by truck from Baltimore into Guilford County, North Carolina, for the purpose of sale, contrary to law, and ‘have transported and sold to various bootleggers in North Carolina from February 19, 1947 to July 31, 1947 a total of

62 A.2d 570

54,426 cases, * * * all in flagrant violation of the laws of North Carolina.’ One of the affidavits, not a part of the warrant, alleges that petitioner ‘was not present in the State of North Carolina at the time of the commission of the crime of which he is charged, and has not fled from said State but * * * while in the State of Maryland entered into a conspiracy with other defendants in North Carolina intentionally resulting in the commission of a series of crimes in Guilford County, North Carolina.’ This much clearly appears, though the North Carolina papers are crudely and verbosely drawn, on a printed form for extradition of fugitives from justice pursuant to the applicable federal...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT