State ex rel. Trigg v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 23 July 1954 |
| Citation | 270 S.W.2d 332,32 Beeler 147,196 Tenn. 147 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. TRIGG v. THOMPSON. 32 Beeler 147, 196 Tenn. 147, 270 S.W.2d 332 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Hardison, Walton & Collins, Memphis, for petitioner.
Nat Tipton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Shelby County dismissing a petition for the writ of habeas corpus, sued out by the relator, Trigg, to test the validity of a rendition warrant issued by the Governor, ordering him returned to the State of Indiana for trial.
It appears that Trigg was charged in the State of Indiana with the crime of robbery and was arrested in Memphis, and was held upon a fugitive warrant. Application was made to the Governor for a rendition warrant, which was issued by the Governor of this State, and this habeas corpus proceeding resulted. The petition of the writ of habeas corpus insisted that the relator, Trigg, was not in Indiana on or about the time he is charged with this crime, and also that the papers accompanying the request of the Governor of Indiana for the return of Trigg to that State were not in proper order.
It appears that on the day on which the writ was set for hearing Trigg applied for a continuance in order that he might either obtain the original papers, or a verified transcript, which were presented to the Governor of this State in applying for the rendition warrant. At this time the defendants had present in Memphis two witnesses who identified Trigg as having been present in Indiana on the alleged date in the charge against him. The trial judge on November 6th overruled the general application for continuance, but passed the hearing for a sufficient time to enable Trigg to obtain a transcript from the Governor's office. Testimony was heard on November 6th, and Trigg testified that he was in Chicago on the date alleged, and two witnesses identified him as the man who had held up their establishment on the date set out in the affidavit. The case was then passed until November 22nd. No application was made by the relator to be permitted to take depositions of witnesses by whom he could prove that he was in Illinois on the date charged. 12 Amer.Jur. Continuances, Sec. 24, 11 A.L.R. 1410.
On November 22nd no offer of any proof on this question was made on behalf of Trigg that the trial judge committed error.
It is also insisted that it was error for the trial court to consider evidence taken on November 6th when he rendered his final judgment on November 22nd, by reason of the fact that between November 6th and November 22nd the term of the Circuit Court had come to an end and a new term had begun. Section 10312 of the Supplement to the Code covers this situation and authorizes the trial judge to take the course which he followed. The testimony on his behalf to the effect that he was not in Indiana on said date was held as tending to show his presence there.
It is well settled that the issuance of the rendition warrant by the Governor of the asylum State make a prima facie case that the party sought to be extradicted was present...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ierardi, In re
...Koprivich v. Warden, 234 Md. 465, 200 A.2d 49 (1963); State v. Limberg, 274 Minn. 31, 142 N.W.2d 563 (1966); State ex rel. Trigg v. Thompson, 196 Tenn. 147, 270 S.W.2d 332 (1954). These cases tend to hold that extradition statutes, as well as art. 4, § 2, cl. 2, of the United States Constit......
-
Cooper, In re
...of law.' Comption v. State of Alabama, 214 U.S. 1, 8, 29 S.Ct. 605, 607, 53 L.Ed. 885; see also, State ex rel. Trigg v. Thompson, 196 Tenn. 147, 270 S.W.2d 332, 333-334; Stark v. Livermore, supra, 3 N.J.Super. 94, 65 A.2d 625, Petitioners contend that Pennsylvania's obscenity statute (18 Pu......
-
Earhart v. Hicks
...upon technical grounds ... unless it be clear that what was done was in plain contravention of law." State ex rel. Trigg v. Thompson, 196 Tenn. 147, 270 S.W.2d 332, 334 (1954), quoting from Compton v. Alabama, 214 U.S. 1, 8, 29 S.Ct. 605, 607, 53 L.Ed. 885 (1909). See also McCullough v. Dar......
-
State ex rel. Ezell v. Evatt
...is a valid charge against the relator in the demanding state and this constitutes a compliance with the statute. State ex rel. Trigg v. Thompson, 196 Tenn. 147, 270 S.W.2d 332. This extradition, as well as all others, originates by virtue of the provisions of the Federal Constitution. The d......