State ex rel. Krueger v. Michalski

• Decision Date: 08 October 1957
• Parties: STATE ex rel. William John KRUEGER, Appellant, v. Clemens F. MICHALSKI, Sheriff of Milwaukee County, Respondent.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 339

85 N.W.2d 339

1 Wis.2d 644

STATE ex rel. William John KRUEGER, Appellant, v. Clemens F. MICHALSKI, Sheriff of Milwaukee County, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 8, 1957.

Eugene J. Sullivan and Dennis M. Sullivan, Milwaukee, for appellant.

Stewart G. Honeck, Atty. Gen., William A. Platz, Asst. Atty. Gen., William J. McCauley, Dist. Atty., Ben J. Wiener, Deputy Dist. Atty., Albert M. Stanich, Asst. Dist. Atty., Milwaukee, Robert L. McDonald, Asst. State's Atty., Winnebago County, Ill., Rockford, Ill., for respondent.

FAIRCHILD, Justice.

Relator urges that the evidence he offered to show the nullity of his marriage to Lillian would conclusively establish his innocence of the offense with which Illinois has charged him. The attorney general asserts that whatever answer there may be to his proffered defense, both it and any facts controverting it go to the question of guilt or innocence and that question is to be determined in the courts of Illinois and not here. We agree with the attorney general.

The basis for extradition from state to state is found in sec. 2, art. IV, U.S.Const., which provides:

'A person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall, on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.'

Congress has prescribed a procedure for demanding extradition and has placed the duty of responding to the the demand upon the governor. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3182.

Ch. 964, Stats., is the uniform criminal extradition act adopted by Wisconsin and many other states. Some of its provisions relate to the exercise of the duties of the governor. Others provide an auxiliary procedure under which enforcement officers may arrest and detain those who are wanted for prosecution in another state pending action by the governor. State ex rel. Wells v. Hanley, 1947, 250 Wis. 374, at page 375, 27 N.W.2d 373.

Sec. 964.20 provides: 'The guilt or innocence of the accused as to the crime of which he is charged may not be inquired into by the governor or in any proceeding after the demand for extradition accompanied by a charge of crime in legal form as above provided shall have been presented to the governor, except as it may be involved in identifying the person held as the person charged with the crime.'

The section just quoted is a sufficient answer to relator's contention that the circuit court should have decided that he is innocent. State ex rel. Wells v. Hanley, supra; State ex rel. Kohl v. Kubiak, 1949, 255 Wis. 186, 38 N.W.2d 499; State ex rel. Kojis v. Barczak, 1953, 264 Wis. 136, 58 N.E.2d 420.

Relator argues that if he establishes that no crime was committed as charged, he shows that he is not a 'fugitive from justice.' That phrase has been interpreted to mean, in the context of extradition of the type here involved, simply a person who, having been in a state when a crime is alleged to have occurred within its borders, and being charged with the offense, is found outside the state. Ex parte Reggel, 1885, 114 U.S. 642, at page 651, 5 S.Ct. 1148, 29 L.Ed.2d 250; Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police, 1917, 245 U.S. 128, 38 S.Ct. 41, 62 L.Ed. 193.

Relator has cited two cases in which courts have departed from the general rule and have discharged persons about to be delivered to the demanding state because their innocence of the crimes alleged seemed to have been clearly demonstrated by highly persuasive...