State v. Knight
| Decision Date | 06 April 1943 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 716. |
| Citation | 31 Ala.App. 174,14 So.2d 159 |
| Parties | STATE v. KNIGHT. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied May 11, 1943.
Appeal from Probate Court, Talladega County; D. Hardy Riddle Judge.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in State v. Knight, 14 So.2d 161.
The following is the warrant issued by the Governor:
Wm. N. McQueen, Acting Atty. Gen., and John J. Haynes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Earle Montgomery, of Talladega, for appellee.
The State appeals from an order of the Judge of Probate of Talladega County discharging appellee from custody of the sheriff of said county, upon petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Appellee was held in custody under an extradition warrant, duly issued for his detention by the Honorable Frank M. Dixon, Governor of Alabama, upon the request of the Governor of Tennessee.
The appeal, by the State, is prosecuted pursuant to the statute. Code 1940, Title 15, § 369.
The contention below-raised by demurrer and upon which the order of discharge was rested-was that the Governor's warrant was fatally deficient because, allegedly, it failed to (sic) "show that the petitioner was present in Tennessee when the offense was committed." This position is not sustained by the decisions.
The warrant contained the requisite jurisdictional recitals and, when exhibited with the return of the sheriff, made out a prima facie case for the prisoner's legal restraint. Recent cases to this effect are State v. Rogers, 30 Ala.App. 515, 9 So.2d 758, 760, 761, certiorari denied Id., 243 Ala. 272, 9 So.2d 761; State v. Shelton, 30 Ala.App. 484, 8 So.2d 216; Adams v. State, 30 Ala.App. 487, 8 So.2d 219; State v. Parrish, 242 Ala. 7, 5 So.2d 828, 835.
In approving the extradition warrants in the foregoing cases (and there are others), the import of the holdings is that the warrant need not recite in haec verba that "the accused (alleged fugitive from justice) was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime." The warrant is prima facie sufficient if "upon inspection it fairly appears that the alleged fugitive is the person charged in (the) demanding state with treason, felony or other crime and has fled from justice and is found in this state." State v. Rogers, supra, headnote 8.
True, "a warrant of extradition must not be issued unless the documents presented by the executive authority making the demand show that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime." Code 1940, Title 15, § 52. But the Governor's warrant alone, if containing the recitals of the instant one, is held under our decisions to be sufficient, prima facie, for the prisoner's detention.
The cases do hold that if the other evidence, or the other documents presented at the hearing, should show that the warrant of the Governor was issued in a case not authorized by law, then the prima facie case made by the warrant is thereby overcome. State of Tennessee v. Hamilton, 28 Ala.App. 587, 190 So. 306, 308; Hobbs v. Tennessee ex rel. Alabama, 30 Ala.App. 412, 8 So.2d 595, certiorari denied Id. 243 Ala. 102, 8 So.2d 596. This rule would apply-the prima facie case made by the Governor's warrant to the contrary notwithstanding-if, from the other documents (or facts) presented, it should be shown that the alleged fugitive was, in fact, not "present in the demanding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rayburn v. State, 3 Div. 894
...State v. Freeman, 42 Ala.App. 240, 160 So.2d 12 (1964); Denson v. State, 36 Ala.App. 216, 57 So.2d 830 (1951); State v. Knight, 31 Ala.App. 174, 14 So.2d 159 (1943). However if the supporting papers are introduced into evidence it becomes the duty of the court to examine them for their suff......
-
Emmons v. State
...State v. Freeman, 42 Ala.App. 240, 160 So.2d 12 (1964); Denson v. State, 36 Ala.App. 216, 57 So.2d 830 (1951); State v. Knight, 31 Ala.App. 174, 14 So.2d 159 (1943). However if the supporting papers are introduced into evidence it becomes the duty of the court to examine them for their suff......
- Volunteer State Life Ins. Co. v. Davis
-
Shirley v. State
...State v. Freeman, 42 Ala.App. 240, 160 So.2d 12 (1964); Denson v. State, 36 Ala.App. 216, 57 So.2d 830 (1951); State v. Knight, 31 Ala.App. 174, 14 So.2d 159 (1943). In the case at bar, it does not appear from the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals whether the rendition warrant recite......