Ex parte Sanders

• Decision Date: 15 December 1922
• Docket Number: No. 23351.,23351.
• Citation: 154 Minn. 41,191 N.W. 391
• Parties: Ex parte SANDERS.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

154 Minn. 41

191 N.W. 391

Ex parte SANDERS.

No. 23351.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 15, 1922.

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; C. C. Haupt, Judge.

Habeas corpus by Frank A. Sanders, alias Strauss, for release under a warrant of rendition. From an order quashing the writ, he appeals. Affirmed, and relator remanded to custody.

Syllabus by the Court

The Governor's warrant of rendition issued in response to a demand of the executive of a sister state charging that the accused is a fugitive from the justice of such state is presumptive evidence of the fact; and to establish that he was not such fugitive it must clearly and satisfactorily appear that he was not such fugitive, that is, that he was not in the demanding state.

Guided by these rules it is held that the relator is a fugitive from the justice of North Dakota. Thomas V. Sullivan and Frank E. McAllister, both of St. Paul, for appellant.

C. L. Hilton, Atty. Gen., R. D. O'Brien, Co. Atty., of St. Paul, H. B. Nelson, of Rugby, N. D., and W. F. Donohue, of St. Cloud, for respondent.

DIBELL, J.

Upon the demand of the Governor of North Dakota the Governor of Minnesota issued his warrant for the rendition of Frank A. Sanders as a fugitive from justice. A writ of habeas corpus, issued on the relation of Sanders, was quashed upon a hearing in the district court for Ramsey county and he appeals.

[1] The substantial question is whether Sanders is a fugitive from the justice of North Dakota. Other questions are raised. They are decided adversely to him without discussion. They are unimportant. His counsel frankly and properly concede the question whether he is a fugitive from justice to be the important one, and direct their argument to it.

1. Presumptively the Governor's warrant proves that the one accused is a fugitive from the justice of the demanding state. State v. Curtis, 111 Minn. 240, 126 N. W. 719;State v. Langum, 126 Minn. 39, 147 N. W. 708;State v. Langum, 135 Minn. 320, 160 N. W. 858;State v. Boekenoogen, 140 Minn. 120, 167 N. W. 301;Hogan v. O'Neill, 255 U. S. 52, 41 Sup. Ct. 222, 65 L. Ed. 497.

Speaking with facts like those before us in view, the one accused must have been in the demanding state when the crime was committed, or when some act either overt, looking to its accomplishment, or by way of plan or conspiracy with like purpose, was done, for otherwise he is not a fugitive from the justice of such state. In State v. Langum, 135 Minn. 320, 160 N. W. 858, we quoted the language of Munsey v. Clough, 196 U. S. 364, 25 Sup. Ct. 282, 49 L. Ed. 515, to the effect that ‘when it is so conclusively proved, that no question can be made that the person was not within the demanding state when the crime is said to have been committed, and his arrest is sought on the ground only of a constructive presence at the time, in the demanding state, then the court will discharge the defendant;’ and the language of McNichols v. Pease, 207 U. S. 100, 28 Sup. Ct. 58, 52 L. Ed. 121, that the accused ‘should not be discharged from custody unless it is made clearly and satisfactorily to appear that he is not a fugitive from justice.’ Though there has been an expression of doubt as to the jurisdiction of courts to review the executive conclusion (Biddinger v. Commissioner, 245 U. S. 128, 38 Sup. Ct. 41, 62 L. Ed. 193), the cases bearing upon the necessary degree of proof run along the lines indicated by the quotations given. Hogan v. O'Neill, 255 U. S. 52, 41 Sup. Ct. 222, 65 L. Ed. 497;Appleyard v. Massachusetts, 203 U. S. 222, 27 Sup. Ct. 122, 51 L. Ed. 161,7 Ann. Cas. 1073;State v. Boekenoogen, 140 Minn. 120, 167 N. W. 301;State v. Langum, 126 Minn. 38, 147 N. W. 708; 25 C. J. 269; 11 R. C. L. 732-734.

[2] 2. With these rules for our guidance we inquire whether Sanders was in North Dakota at the time of the commission of the crime for which his rendition was ordered by the Governor.

On the early morning of November 2, 1922, the State Bank of Wolford in Pierce county, N. D., was robbed, and travelers' checks and money in considerable amounts were taken. Wolford is 22 miles from Rugby, the county seat, and about 500 miles from St. Paul, some 16 or 17 hours ride by railway. One witness, with some degree of positiveness, says that about 10:30 or 10:45...