Ripepi, In re

• Decision Date: 14 November 1967
• Citation: 427 Pa. 507,235 A.2d 141
• Parties: In re Extradition of Antonio RIPEPI, Appellant, also known as Anthony Ripepi, to the State of Maryland.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 141

235 A.2d 141

427 Pa. 507

In re Extradition of Antonio RIPEPI, Appellant, also known as Anthony Ripepi, to the State of Maryland.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Nov. 14, 1967.

James A. Ashton, Ashton, Stitt & Valaw, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Robert W. Duggan, Dist. Atty., Edwin J. Martin, Charles B. Watkins, Asst. Dist. Attys., Pittsburgh, for appellee.

Before BELL, C.J., and MUSMANNO, JONES, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

BELL, Chief Justice.

On December 20, 1966, the Governor of Maryland issued a warrant pursuant to the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act of July 8, 1941, P.L. 288, 19 P.S. § 191.1 et seq., requesting the Governor of Pennsylvania to turn over Anthony Ripepi to the State of Maryland. Ripepi was indicted for assault with intent to murder and assault in violation of Article 27, Section 12, of the Annotated Code of Maryland. The copy of the indictment and an affidavit of Charles E. Moylan, the State of Maryland's attorney for the City of Baltimore, was attached to the extradition warrant.

The Governor of Pennsylvania issued his warrant and Ripepi was arrested in Allegheny County. Ripepi refused to be extradited and a hearing was held February 3, 1967, ¹ by the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. The Commonwealth offered in evidence a copy of all the requisition papers, which are in order, and the Governor's warrant, and produced one witness, namely, James Tromberri. Tromberri testified that on the night of the alleged crime he was in a certain club in Baltimore, Maryland, and as he was leaving the club he was assaulted by a man whom he identified as Ripepi. The Commonwealth then rested its case.

Counsel for Anthony Ripepi then called Ripepi's son, Dr. Anthony Charles Ripepi, as a witness. Dr. Ripepi testified, over objection of the Commonwealth, that on the evening of the day the crime was allegedly committed, Anthony Ripepi, the accused was in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, playing cards with the witness and two other individuals from approximately 10:00 P.M. until 12:45 A.M. Ripepi then offered to call additional witnesses who would testify that Ripepi was not in Baltimore at the time of the commission of the crime but was in fact in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth's objection to this testimony was sustained and at the conclusion of the hearing, Ripepi was ordered extradited to Maryland. Ripepi filed exceptions and a petition for a rehearing. The exceptions were dismissed and the petition for a rehearing was denied. Ripepi thereafter appealed to this Court.

Ripepi contends that the lower Court erred in refusing to hear testimony which would establish that Ripepi was not in Maryland at the time the alleged crime was committed. This contention must be sustained. In Commonwealth ex rel. Edgar v. Davis, 425 Pa. 133, Pages 134--135, 228 A.2d 742, the Court said: 'Relator contends that he cannot lawfully be detained or extradited because (1) he was not present in South Dakota at or during the time the alleged crime was committed; * * * Relator is entitled to raise the issue of whether he was in South Dakota at the time the alleged crime was committed. In Commonwealth ex rel. Raucci v. Price, 409 Pa. 90, page 95, 185 A.2d 523, we said:

"Our scope of review in extradition cases is restricted. By the terms of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act of July 8, 1941, * * * the courts of an asylum state may not determine the guilt or innocence of the party sought to be extradited. The courts of an asylum state will order extradition only ((1)) if * * * the subject of the extradition is charged with a crime in the demanding state; (2) if the subject of extradition is a fugitive from the demanding state; (3) if the subject of the extradition was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime; (4) if the requisition papers are in order. All of these elements must be present: Commonwealth ex rel. Pacewicz v. Turley, 399 Pa. 458, 160 A.2d 685; Commonwealth ex rel. Dronsfield v. Hohn, 390 Pa. 434, 135 A.2d 757;...