Com. ex rel. Aronson v. Price

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Writing for the Court: COHEN; BELL, C. J., and ROBERTS
• Citation: 194 A.2d 881,412 Pa. 493
• Decision Date: 12 November 1963
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. George L. ARONSON, Appellant, v. W. Alrich PRICE, Sheriff of Delaware County.

Page 881

194 A.2d 881 412 Pa. 493 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. George L. ARONSON, Appellant,
v.
W. Alrich PRICE, Sheriff of Delaware County. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Nov. 12, 1963.

[412 Pa. 494] Arthur Levy, McClenachan, Blumberg & Levy, Chester, for appellant.

Domenic D. Jerome, Asst. Dist. Atty., Media, for appellee.

[412 Pa. 493] Before MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, and O'BRIEN, JJ.

[412 Pa. 494] COHEN, Justice.

This is an appeal from the denial of relator's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the validity of the extradition

Page 882

proceedings instituted against him under Section 6 of the Uniform Extradition Act. We hold that the court below erred in refusing to grant the writ.

Section 6 of the Extradition Act empowers the governor of Pennsylvania to surrender upon the demand of the executive authority of another state one found in Pennsylvania who is charged with 'committing an act in this State * * * intentionally resulting in a crime in the state whose executive authority is making the demand * * * even though the accused was not in that state at the time of the commission of the crime and has not fled therefrom. ¹ ' In the instant [412 Pa. 495] case, the governor's warrant alleges that relator, George Aronson, committed acts in Pennsylvania which resulted in the crime of theft in Wisconsin, the theft consisting of obtaining goods by virtue of a fraudulent promise to pay for them.

Although the courts of the surrendering state possess only a limited scope of review over an extradition procedure, there is an obligation to make certain that the requirements of the Extradition Act have been satisfied before permitting one to be surrendered to the executive authority of the demanding state. Commonwealth ex rel. Thomas v. Superintendent of Philadelphia County Prison, 372 Pa. 595, 94 A.2d 732 (1953); Commonwealth ex rel. Spivak v. Heinz, 141 Pa.Super. 158, 14 A.2d 875 (1940). An examination of the record in the instant case discloses that this has not been done.

Section 7 of the Act provides that the governor's warrant 'must substantially recite the facts necessary to the validity of its issuance.' ² (Emphasis supplied.) The present proceeding under section 6 of the Act is predicated on the theory that (1) acts were committed in Pennsylvania and (2) that said acts resulted in the crime of theft in Wisconsin. The warrant and accompanying requisition papers, ³ however, fail to set forth facts to support...