State ex rel. Stephenson v. Ryan
| Decision Date | 23 November 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 35491,35491 |
| Citation | 50 N.W.2d 259,235 Minn. 161 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. STEPHENSON v. RYAN, Sheriff. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Relator, who had been arrested as a fugitive from justice upon an extradition warrant by the governor of Minnesota on request of the governor of Indiana, appealed to this court from an order of the district court quashing a writ of habeas corpus. Upon consideration by this court De novo, it is Held:
1. The findings of a referee in habeas corpus proceedings have the effect of a special verdict.
2. Courts will presume, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the governor, in issuing a rendition warrant, did so upon sufficient proof that it issued against a fugitive from justice. The warrant is prima facie evidence that the accused is a fugitive from justice.
3. The burden of proof is upon the prisoner arrested under a rendition warrant to show that he is not a fugitive from justice.
4. The guilt or innocence of the prisoner under a rendition warrant cannot be determined in habeas corpus proceedings. That is a question for the courts of the state issuing the requisition.
Frank J. Warner and Herman J. Ratelle, Minneapolis, appellant (relator below).
Michael J. Dillon, County Atty., Otto morck, Asst. County Atty., Minneapolis, J. A. A. Burnquist, Atty. Gen., Lowell J. Grady, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Emmett McManamon, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, and George W. Hand and John R. O'Connor, Asst. Attys. Gen. of Indiana, for respondent.
Relator petitioned the district court for Hennepin county for a writ of habeas corpus. He had been arrested as a fugitive from justice upon an extradition warrant by the governor of Minnesota on request of the governor of Indiana. The district court ordered the writ quashed, and the relator appealed to this court, where the matter was considered De novo. This court appointed as referee the Honorable Alfred P. Stolberg, formerly judge of the nineteenth judicial district.
The referee took the evidence offered by relator and by respondent and, pursuant to the order of appointment, made findings of fact, which have the effect of a special verdict. They have not been questioned by relator. The referee, pursuant to the order of reference, also made recommendations for conclusions of law and that the writ be quashed.
His findings of fact, which we adopt as our own, are as follows:
'1.
'That on the 16th day of November, 1925, the relator, David C. Stephenson, pursuant to an Indictment found and filed in the Hamilton County Circuit Court of the State of Indiana, was found guilty of murder in the second degree and thereupon sentenced and committed by said Court to imprisonment in the Indiana State Prison for and during his natural life.
'2.
'That thereafter the State Commission on Clemency of the State of Indiana recommended to the Governor of said State that the life sentence of the relator be commuted to a term of 'Time served to Life'; that pursuant to said recommendation, the Governor of the said State, on the 10th day of February, 1950, commuted the life sentence of said relator to a term of 'Time served to Life'.
'3.
'That on the 17th day of March, 1950, the Board of Trustees of the Indiana State Prison, which constitutes the Board of Parole of said State, recommended that the relator be paroled under the terms and conditions of the law and the Board of Trustees. (See Respondent's Exhibit D.)
'4.
'That on the 23rd day of March, 1950, the Board of Trustees aforesaid and the relator executed a so-called Parole Release Agreement (Respondent's Exhibit E), which Agreement reads as follows:
David C. Stephenson #11148
an inmate of said institution, to refrain from crime and lead an honorable life, do, by virtue of the authority conferred upon them by law, and with the approval of the State Department of Public Welfare, hereby parole the said David C. Stephenson to the supervisory custody of the State Department of Public Welfare and allow him to be at liberty outside of the buildings and enclosures of said institution, subject, however, to the accompanying parole rules and regulations of the State Department of Public Welfare which are made a part of this agreement, and subject, further, to the following special conditions: Paroled with a maximum expiration date of: Life. This release was authorized and special condition attached by the Board of Trustees at their meeting of: 3--17--50.
'That on the back of said Agreement are rules and regulations to be observed by parolees which read, in part, as follows:
home with Catherine Thompson, a sister, who resided at Tulsa, Oklahoma; that thereupon the relator executed an agreement for the purpose of leaving Indiana and going to the State of Oklahoma, which Agreement reads as follows:
Signature of Parolee:
(signed) D. C. Stephenson
Signed at Indiana State Prison
Dated March 23, 1950
'That after signing the last named exhibit relator was released from the State Prison and accompanied his sister to Tulsa, Oklahoma; that relator became dissatisfied with conditions at Tulsa and about August 1st, 1950, relator was granted permission to move to Carbondale, Illinois, to enter into business with one Lloyd O. Hill; that this arrangement was approved by the supervisor of parolees of both the States of Indiana and Illinois, and relator then moved to the State of Illinois. That upon being granted permission to move from Tulsa to Illinois the relator executed an agreement, which reads as follows.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Gegenfurtner v. Granquist
...to leave the state without permission of the parole officer is subject to extradition as a fugitive from justice (State ex rel. Stephenson v. Ryan, 235 Minn. 161, 50 N.W.2d 259), it is argued that Gegenfurtner should not be extradited in this situation if Gegenfurtner's return to Minnesota ......
-
Boothe v. State
...no need to make an examination into procedural technicalities beyond seeing that the proper papers are produced. State ex rel. Stephenson v. Ryan, 235 Minn. 161, 50 N.W.2d 259. The judgment below Affirmed. 1 ' § 622. Foreign Common Law. In the absence of evidence, the common law of another ......
-
Gardels v. Brewer
...178 N.W.2d 644, 647 (N.Dak., 1970); State ex rel. Westlund v. Nehls, 43 Wis.2d 328, 168 N.W.2d 863, 868--869; State ex rel. Stephenson v. Ryan, 235 Minn. 161, 50 N.W.2d 259, 265; Ex parte, Colcord, 49 S.Dak. 416, 207 N.W. 213, 214; 31 Am.Jur.2d, Extradition, § 20, pp. 937--938; 35 C.J.S. Ex......
-
State ex rel. Kirkendoll v. Zacharias
...Kirkendoll contends that parole must be revoked in the demanding state before extradition can be had. See State ex rel. Stephenson v. Ryan, 235 Minn. 161, 50 N.W.2d 259 (1951). While the petitioner's parole had been revoked in Stephenson, revocation of parole has since been held subject to ......