Hinz v. Perkins, 4044
| Decision Date | 02 July 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 4044,4044 |
| Citation | 82 A.2d 423,97 N.H. 114 |
| Parties | HINZ v. PERKINS et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
James C. Cleveland, New London, for plaintiff.
Gordon M. Tiffany, Atty. Gen., Warren E. Waters, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Raymond K. Perkins, County Sol., Concord, for defendants.
The office of habeas corpus in interstate rendition is generally confined to determination of: '(1) the correctness of the requisition papers, (2) the relator's identity, (3) whether the relator is a fugitive, (4) whether 'a crime is substantially charged." Note, Habeas Corpus in Interstate Rendition, 47 Col.L.Rev. 470, 471. This petition raises no question as to the validity of the requisition papers or the plaintiff's identity. Since the 'requisition is accompanied by a duly authenticated indictment which substantially charges the commission of an offense against the laws of * * *' the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Bracco v. Wooster, 91 N.H. 413, 414, 20 A.2d 640; G.L.Mass. (Ter.Ed.) c. 273, § 1; Commonwealth v. Booth, 266 Mass. 80, 165 N.E. 29, the principal question is whether the plaintiff is a fugitive from justice.
Except for minor changes in form both New Hampshire and Massachusetts have adopted the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (9 Uniform Laws Anno. 169 (1951) although the latter jurisdiction refers to it as the Uniform Criminal Interstate Rendition Law. R.L. c. 437; G.L.Mass. (Ter.Ed.) c. 276, §§ 11, 20R. Under section 3 of the Uniform Act in order that one be classed as a fugitive it must appear that he 'was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, and that thereafter he fled from the state. * * *' R.L., c. 437, § 3. Fortier v. Frink, 92 N.H. 50, 24 A.2d 604. 'The evidence that the relator departed from Massachusetts after the commission of the alleged crimes, and was found in this state, supports the necessary finding that she is a fugitive.' State v. Clough, 71 N.H. 594, 600, 53 A. 1086, 1089, 67 L.R.A. 946. See Bracco v. Wooster, 91 N.H. 413, 415, 20 A.2d 640. The Fact that the plaintiff was in the demanding state only temporarily and for an innocent purpose does not make him any the less a fugitive under the Uniform Act. People ex rel. Gottschalk v. Brown, 237 N.Y. 483, 143 N.E. 653, 32 A.L.R. 1164. Cases like Ex parte King, 139 Me. 203, 28 A.2d 562, and People ex rel. Higley v. Millspaw, 281 N.Y. 441, 24 N.E.2d 117, where the accused was not in the demanding state at the time of the alleged crime, are not controlling on the facts of this case. Annotation 91 A.L.R. 1262. While section 6 of the Uniform Act permits the rendition of persons not present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime, no attempt was made by the states to invoke its provisions.
Since the use of interstate rendition to compel family support has been characterized as clumsy and punitive (37 Am.B.A.J. 93, 94 (1951), the plaintiff argues that its use in this case violates a statute similar to the Uniform support of Dependents Act. Laws 1949, c. 154. However section 9 of that act specifically...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reeves v. Cox
...through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, to question whether he is the person named in the requisition papers. Hinz v. Perkins, 97 N.H. 114, 82 A.2d 423 (1951); see RSA 612:10, 20. At this stage of the proceedings the parties can present evidence to prove or disprove that the plainti......
-
Hardy v. Betz
...The issue to be determined is whether a crime under the law of Massachusetts is substantially charged. RSA 612:3, supra. Hinz v. Perkins, 97 N.H. 114, 115, 82 A.2d 423; Bracco v. Wooster, 91 N.H. 413, 20 A.2d 640; Annot. 40 A.L.R.2d 1151. Mass. G.L., c. 273, § 15 provides in part: 'Any fath......
-
State v. Murray
...a fugitive from justice remains to be decided by the municipal court of Keene at the hearing to be held on March 3, 1962. Hinz v. Perkins, 97 N.H. 114, 82 A.2d 423; Pearson v. Campbell, 97 N.H. 444, 91 A.2d 453. Any decision then made is subject to the defendant's right to file a writ of ha......
-
Thomas v. O'Brien
...inadequate and incorrect. Both of these questions may be properly considered under a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Hinz v. Perkins, 97 N.H. 114, 82 A.2d 423. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act has been adopted in this state, R.L. c. 437, but does not appear to have been adopted in......