Kuney v. State

• Decision Date: 02 December 1924
• Citation: 88 Fla. 354,102 So. 547
• Parties: KUNEY v. STATE et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

102 So. 547

88 Fla. 354

KUNEY v. STATE et al.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

December 2, 1924

Error to Circuit Court, De Soto County; George W. Whitehurst Judge.

Petition by Clark G. Kuney for writ of habeas corpus to be directed to the State of Florida and J. L. Hampton, Sheriff. From order granting motion by Sheriff to strike petitioner's answer to return and remanding petitioner to custody of Sheriff petitioner brings error.

Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Inclusion in answer of irrelevant or improper matter is not ground for striking valid portion of answer presenting valid defense. In habeas corpus, the inclusion in an answer of irrelevant or improper matter is not ground for striking a valid portion of the answer that presents a proper defense; especially one involving a constitutional right.

Averment in answer to return of sheriff that petitioner is not fugitive from justice presents proper issue and is not conclusion of fact. The averment, in an answer of petitioner to the return of a sheriff in habeas corpus proceedings, that the petitioner 'is not a fugitive from justice,' presents a proper issue, and is not a mere conclusion of fact.

Denial in answer to assertion in return that petitioner is fugitive from justice presents issue on which petitioner can offer testimony; petitioner not required to support averment that he is not fugitive from demanding state in advance of introducing testimony to support answer. Where the sheriff in his return, asserts that the petitioner had 'fled from justice and taken refuge in the state of Florida,' the averment in the answer that the petitioner 'is not a fugitive from justice from the demanding state,' presents an issue upon which the petitioner has the right to offer testimony, and he is not required to support this averment by affidavits in advance of introducing testimony in support of his answer.

Before person can be taken from state in which he resides to another state on trial on criminal charge, he must be proved to be fugitive from justice; petitioner has right to submit proof to support denial that he is fugitive from justice from another state. Before a person may lawfully be taken from the state in which he is residing to another state to stand trial on a criminal charge in the demanding state, the fact that he is a fugitive from justice must be established, and when a petitioner in habeas corpus proceedings challenges the charge that he is such a fugitive, he has the right to submit proof in support of his denial.

Interstate extradition is wholly governed by Constitution and statutes relief from arrest in one state for offense against laws of another may be had by habeas corpus, in which whether petitioner is fugitive from justice may be determined. Interstate extradition is wholly governed by constitutional and statutory provisions. Except as authorized by such provisions, arrest on extradition proceedings in one state for an offense against the laws of another state is illegal, and relief may be had by habeas corpus. Accordingly, it may be determined on habeas corpus * * * whether or not he is a fugitive from justice.

Accused may show at any time before surrender to demanding state that he is not fugitive from justice; burden of overcoming prima facie case made by Governor's warrant that accused is fugitive from justice is upon accused. On habeas corpus accused is entitled to show, at any time before his actual surrender to the demanding state, that he is not a fugitive from justice within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the United States; the question being one of fact, upon which the executive determination is not conclusive, and upon which accused is entitled to introduce evidence. The Governor's warrant is prima facie evidence that accused is a fugitive from justice, and the burden of overcoming the prima facie case made by the warrant is upon accused.

COUNSEL

Treadwell & Treadwell, of Arcadia, for plaintiff in error.

Rivers Buford, Atty. Gen., and Marvin C. McIntosh, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants in error.

OPINION

BROWNE J.

The plaintiff in error, Clark G. Kuney, was taken in custody and deprived of his liberty by the sheriff of Lee county, Fla., under a warrant of extradition, issued by Hon. Cary A. Hardee, Governor of Florida.

Kuney applied for and obtained a writ of habeas corpus, to which the sheriff made return, that he was holding the petitioner in custody by virtue of 'a certain executive warrant for the said Clark G. Kuney issued by Hon. Cary A. Hardee, Governor of the State of Florida, on the 11th day of July, 1924, in pursuance of the letter of request sent to him by the Governor of Louisiana, dated the 26th day of June, 1924, which is hereto attached and made a part of this return.'

The letter of the Governor of Louisiana to the Governor of the State of Florida, which is made part of the sheriff's return, asserts, among other things, that the petitioner 'has fled from the justice of this state and has taken refuge in the state of Florida.'

To this return, the petitioner filed an answer in which he set up, among other defenses:

'That he is not a

...