Pearce v. State of Texas
| Decision Date | 10 December 1894 |
| Docket Number | No. 596,596 |
| Citation | 39 L.Ed. 164,15 S.Ct. 116,155 U.S. 311 |
| Parties | PEARCE v. STATE OF TEXAS et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
W. L. Martin, for defendants in error.
George A. Pearce was arrested in the state of Texas on an executive warrant issued by the governor of that state, upon the requisition of the governor of the state of Alabama, to be delivered up to the state of Alabama, to answer two indictments against him in the city court of Mobile, Ala., each charging him with embezzlement and grand larceny; and while in the custody of the agent of the state of Alabama, to be transported to Mobile for trial upon said indictments, he sued out a writ of habeas corpus before the judge of the 42d district of the state of Texas, praying, for the reasons therein stated, to be discharged. On the hearing of the petition, the district judge refused to discharge Pearce, and remanded him to the custody of the agent. Pearce thereupon appealed to the court of criminal appeals of the state of Texas, the court of last resort in criminal matters, where the judgment below was affirmed. 32 Tex. Cr. R. 301, 23 S. W. 15.
The grounds on which the relator contended that he was entitled to be discharged were, as stated by the court of appeals, that the indictments were insufficient to authorize his extradition, because it was not alleged therein that the offenses were committed in the state of Alabama, and in violation of her laws; that the indictments were wholly void, in that no time or place was laid therein, and it did not appear where the offenses were committed, nor that they were not long since barred. Relator further showed that he had been a citizen of Texas for more than three years, and that his whereabouts were known to interested parties in Alabama, this proof being made under the statute of limitations, presumably of Texas, as it did not appear how long the offenses were committed prior to the February term, 1889, of the Mobile city court, at which term the indictments were found, nor what was the statute of limitations in Alabama, if any, for embezzlement and theft. The relator did not deny that he was a fugitive from justice within the rule on that subject, or raise any issue thereon. The record showed the requisition made by the governor of Alabama, copies of the indictments duly certified, and the warrant of the governor of Texas; and, in effect, the relator relied for his discharge entirely upon the invalidity of the indictments.
The district judge certified that, on the hearing below, he had examined the laws of the state of Alabama, and found the indictments sufficient thereunder, or 'at least not void.'
An opinion was filed in the court of appeals by Simkins, J., in which it was held that any indictment which, under the laws of the demanding state, sufficiently charges the crime,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ullom v. Davis
...That is a matter for the California courts to decide. Munsey v. Clough, 196 U.S. 364, 373; Compton v. Alabama, 214 U.S. 1, 8; Pearce v. Texas, 155 U.S. 311, 313; Pierce v. Creecy, 210 U.S. 387, 52 L.Ed. 113; Drew v. Thaw, 235 U.S. 432, 59 L.Ed. 302; In re Strauss, 197 U.S. 324, 49 L.Ed. 774......
-
Williams v. Wayne County Sheriff
...not a matter of law on the face of the indictment--the question should be argued and devoloped at trial in the demanding state. 20 In Pearce v. Texas, 21 the Court rejected plaintiff's challenge of the indictment supporting extradition. The claimed deficiency was failure to state time and p......
-
Michigan v. Doran
...person may be returned to the State for trial, it is enough for this [extradition] proceeding." See also Pearce v. Texas, 155 U.S. 311, 313, 15 S.Ct. 116, 117, 39 L.Ed. 164 (1894); Uniform Criminal Extradition Act § 3, 11 U.L.A. 93 5. See, e. g., Kirkland v. Preston, 128 U.S.App.D.C. 148, 3......
-
Cooper, In re
...violating it. It has been held that the courts of the asylum state in habeas corpus proceedings need not (Pearce v. State of Texas, 155 U.S. 311, 314, 15 S.Ct. 116, 39 L.Ed. 164) and should not review the constitutionality of the statute that is alleged to have been violated. In re Uran, 13......