State ex rel. Ljungdahl v. Sullivan
| Decision Date | 17 April 1945 |
| Citation | 155 Fla. 817,21 So.2d 713 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. LJUNGDAHL v. SULLIVAN, Sheriff. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Marshall C wiseheart, judge.
G. A Worley and Jack Kehoe, both of Miami, for appellant.
J. Tom Watson, Atty. Gen., Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Fred J. Munder, Dist. Atty. of Suffolk County, of Riverhead, N Y., and Henry Tasker, Asst. Dist. Atty. of Suffolk County, of Greenport, N. Y., for appellee.
Warrant of rendition having been issued by the Governor of Florida in extradition proceedings instituted by the State of New York in re Costa Ljungdahl, the appellant sued out writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida challenging the sufficiency of the involved indictment to substantially charge a criminal offense.
On return and hearing, the Circuit Court remanded petitioner and, thereupon, he perfected his appeal to this Court seeking the reversal of the judgment of remand.
The material part of the indictment is as follows:
'The Grand Jury of the County of Suffolk, by this indictment, accuse Ellen Norma Ljungdahl Scharf and Costa Ljungdahl of the following crime: Subornation of Perjury in the First Degree.
'First Count
'Defendants on or about the 24th day of May, 1943, at Riverhead, Town of Riverhead, Suffolk County, New York, committed the crime of Subornation of Perjury in the First Degree, contrary to Penal Law, Section 1632 [Consol.Laws N.Y.C. 40].'
It appears to be settled beyond question that in extradition proceedings the sufficiency of the indictment is to be tested by the law of the demanding State. If the indictment, though inartificially drawn, substantially charges the alleged fugitive with the commission of a crime under the laws of the demanding State, it is sufficient. See Pierce v. Creecy, 210 U.S. 387, 28 S.Ct. 714, 52 L.Ed. 1113.
The form of indictment as used in this case has been held sufficient to substantially charge a criminal offense under the laws of the State of New York. See People v. Bogdanoff et al., 254 N.Y. 16, 171 N.E. 890, 69 A.L.R. 1378; People v. Farley, 252 A.D. 811, 298 N.Y.S. 876, affirmed by Court of Appeals, 277 N.Y. 617, 14 N.E.2d 190.
The judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
The legal sufficiency of an indictment among other questions was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- City of Tallahassee v. Roberts
-
State ex rel. White v. Kelly, 58-264
...rel. Myers v. Allen, 83 Fla. 655, 92 So. 155, 157; Chase v. State, 93 Fla. 963, 113 So. 103, 107, 54 A.L.R. 271; State ex rel. Ljungdahl v. Sullivan, 155 Fla. 817, 21 So.2d 713; accord, Kelly v. State ex rel. Curry, Fla.1956, 92 So.2d 172, CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., HORTON, J., and BARNS, PAUL ......
-
Sullivan v. State ex rel. Pardew
...It concluded with the following paragraph: 'The judgment appealed from is accordingly reversed on authority of State ex rel. Lungdahl v. Sullivan, 155 Fla. 817, 21 So.2d 713 and like cases. Reversed.' We are confronted with a motion to recall the mandate, issued January 22, 1951, and clarif......
-
Sullivan v. State ex rel. Pardew
...the merits of a charge like this. The judgment appealed from is accordingly reversed on authority of State of Florida ex rel. Ljungdahl v. Sullivan, 155 Fla. 817, 21 So.2d 713 and like Reversed. ADAMS, C. J., and THOMAS and ROBERTS, JJ., concur. ...