Com. ex rel. Ebbole v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 11 December 1972 |
| Citation | 299 A.2d 47,223 Pa.Super. 119 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH ex rel. Harold Anthony EBBOLE, Appellant, v. William B. ROBINSON, Warden of the Allegheny County Jail. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
John J. Petrush, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
R. Eberhardt, Asst. Dist. Atty., Robert W. Duggan, Dist. Atty., Pittsburgh, for appellee.
Before WRIGHT, P.J., and WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, and HOFFMAN, JJ.
An extradition demand by the Governor of California was recognized by the Governor of this Commonwealth, and thereafter the court below ordered the extradition. The appellant contends that the California demand was violative of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act 1 because the California affidavit of arrest did not demonstrate probable cause. The affidavit specifically set forth that the appellant committed rape and perversion upon a named victim on a specific date.
Section 3 of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act provides that the demand for extradition, when based on a warrant for arrest, be accompanied by 'a copy of an affidavit made before a magistrate there, together with a copy of any warrant which was issued thereupon . . .' and that the 'affidavit made before the magistrate must substantially charge the person demanded with having committed a crime under the law of that state . . .' Thus, there is no express statutory requirement for the affidavit to state the source or the grounds for the belief that the crime was committed. Even if we were to imply such a provision, the court below was clearly warranted in ordering the extradition because there was present in the court not only the affiant, an assistant district attorney, but also the victim herself who identified the appellant.
Order affirmed.
1 Act of July 8, 1941, P.L. 288, § 1 et seq., 19 P.S. § 191.1 et seq.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. ex rel. Marshall v. Gedney
...contention, that the warrant contained in the extradition papers was inadequate, should be litigated in New Jersey, the demanding state. In Ebbole the issue was whether section 3 of the 19 P.S. § 191.3, standing alone, requires a showing of probable cause; we held that it did not. While the......
-
Com. ex rel. Marshall v. Gedney
...contains no requirement that a showing of probable cause be made before extradition will be allowed. Commonwealth ex rel. Ebbole v. Robinson, 223 Pa.Super. 119, 299 A.2d 47 (1972). Therefore, if we were to agree with relator's position, we would have to conclude that there is a constitution......
- Britton v. Britton
-
Santarsiero v. Santarsiero
... ... return during the full period of two years.' ... Commonwealth ex rel. Cartmell v. Cartmell, 164 ... Pa.Super. 108, 109, 63 A.2d 691, 692 ... ...