Dutil v. Rice
| Decision Date | 07 April 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 207217,207217 |
| Citation | 34 Conn.Supp. 78,376 A.2d 1119 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | George DUTIL v. Donald RICE et al. |
Silvester & Daly, Hartford, and Emil A. Petke, Terryville, for plaintiff.
George D. Stoughton, State's Atty., for defendants.
The plaintiff applied to this court for a writ of habeas corpus to contest the validity of the governor's extradition warrant under which he is being held for rendition to the authorities of the state of Maine. The plaintiff contests the validity of the extradition warrant on the ground, inter alia, that he was not present in that state at the time the crime for which he stands indicted in that state was alleged to have been committed and that he did not flee from that state's justice.
The requisition papers issued by the governor of the state of Maine and the extradition warrant issued by the governor of Connecticut were filed with the court and indicate the following: The plaintiff stands indicted in Maine for a violation of Me.Rev.Stat. § 17-1601, cheating by false pretenses. The grand jury charged in substance that on September 14, 1975, in Jonesport, Maine, the plaintiff purchased 10,000 pounds of live lobster from Beals and Jonesport Co-Operative, Inc., which he paid for with a check in the amount of $17,520, drawn on his Connecticut bank, at a time when there were insufficient funds in his account for the payment of the check. On the basis of the indictment, the state's attorney for Washington County, Maine, requested the governor of that state to issue a requisition to the governor of Connecticut for the plaintiff's return, representing that the plaintiff "was in the State of Maine on or about (September 14, 1975) and . . . to avoid prosecution, fled from the jurisdiction of this state, and is now a fugitive from justice and is within the jurisdiction of the State of Connecticut. . . . " Maine's governor complied with that request and issued his requisition for the plaintiff's return, representing that the plaintiff stands charged with a crime under Maine law, "committed in the County of Washington, in this State; he having been in this State at the time of the commission of said crime, and it having been represented to me that he has fled from the justice of this State. . . . " The governor of Connecticut determined to comply with this request and issued her extradition warrant for the plaintiff's return to Maine. The warrant recited that the plaintiff stood charged with having committed a crime in Washington County, Maine, that he had fled from justice in that state and that he had taken refuge in Connecticut.
At the hearing held on the plaintiff's application the parties entered into a stipulation of the following facts: In September, 1975, the plaintiff was doing business as Northeast Lobster Company. On September 13, 1975, he ordered 10,000 pounds of lobster from Beals and Jonesport Co-Operative, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the Co-Op), of Jonesport, Maine. Prior to that time, he had done a substantial amount of business with the Co-Op. On September 14, 1975, one of his employees went to Jonesport with a refrigerated truck and picked up the 10,000 pounds of lobster, but the plaintiff was not in Maine on that day. His employee gave the Co-Op a check for $17,520 for the lobsters. The check was drawn on the account of Northeast Lobster Company and was signed by the plaintiff. The employee returned to Connecticut with the lobsters and another driver took the truck to New York where the lobsters were to have been sold. In New York it was discovered that a substantial number of the lobsters were dead, weak or rotten. One of the prospective purchasers bought about 350 pounds of the lobsters which he felt were good, and none of the others accepted any. The plaintiff was unable to dispose of the balance of the lobsters and he telephoned the Co-Op on September 15 to discuss the matter. He then telephoned a cooperative in New Harbour, Maine, and arranged to have the balance of the lobsters taken there to see whether any of them could be salvaged. On September 18, 1975, the check for $17,520 was presented at the plaintiff's bank. At that time, the balance in his corporate account was $1536. The manager of the bank called him and advised him of the overdraft, and the plaintiff said he wanted to stop payment. He was a long-time customer and the bank would have paid the check if requested to do so. The plaintiff was so advised, but he insisted that the check not be honored. The check was returned to a bank in Maine for insufficient funds. On September 22, 1975, a stop-payment order was executed by the plaintiff and he deposited $22,000 in the account. The check was presented again at the plaintiff's bank on October 3, 1975, but was returned owing to the stop-payment order.
Both Connecticut and Maine have adopted the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. General Statutes §§ 54-157 through 54-185; Me.Rev.Stat. §§ 15-201 through 15-229. That act provides for both "fugitive" and "nonfugitive" extraditions. Section 3 of the act, § 54-159 of the General Statutes, provides for the return to another state, upon a proper demand by the executive authority of that state, of any person found in this state who is charged with having committed a crime in the other state and is a fugitive from that state's justice. Section 54-159, governing "fugitive" extraditions, implements the obligation of the governor under article IV § 2 of the United States constitution to surrender fugitives upon the proper demand of the governor of another state. See Carino v. Watson, 171 Conn. 366, 371, 370 A.2d 950. When extradition is sought under this section, the person demanded may resist extradition by proving, in a habeas corpus...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. Blake
...of its provisions. Cain v. Moore, --- Conn. ---, ---, 438 A.2d 723 (42 Conn.L.J., No. 25, pp. 8, 9) (1980); Dutil v. Rice, 34 Conn.Sup. 78, 82, 376 A.2d 1119 (1977). In addition, at oral argument, both sides agreed, as do we, that the recent decision by the United States Supreme Court in Mi......
-
Jenkins v. Garrison
...the exercise of gubernatorial discretion to which he is entitled. Ex parte Holden, 719 S.W.2d 678 (Tx.App.1986); Dutil v. Rice, 34 Conn.Supp. 78, 376 A.2d 1119 (1977); Koenig v. Poskochil, 238 Neb. 118, 469 N.W.2d 523 (1991); Ex parte Kaufman, 73 S.D. 166, 39 N.W.2d 905 (1949). See also Wat......
-
Barrila v. Blake
...Narel v. Liburdi, supra, 185 Conn., at ---, 441 A.2d 177; Ross v. Hegstrom, 157 Conn. 403, 410, 254 A.2d 556 (1969); Dutil v. Rice, 34 Conn.Sup. 78, 82, 376 A.2d 1119 (1977). A person is a fugitive from justice if he commits a crime in one state and is thereafter found in another state. App......
-
Mahler, Application of
...is within the discretion of the Governor, and § 6 of the Uniform Law has uniformly been so construed. See, e. g., Dutil v. Rice, 34 Conn.Sup. 78, 376 A.2d 1119 (Super.Ct.1977); Conrad v. McClearn, 166 Colo. 568, 445 P.2d 222 (Sup.Ct.1968); People ex rel. Bernheim on Behalf of Fuller v. Ward......