State v. Murray
| Decision Date | 01 March 1962 |
| Citation | 178 A.2d 507,104 N.H. 38 |
| Parties | STATE v. Donald C. MURRAY. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
William Maynard, Atty. Gen., Alexander J. Kalinski, Asst. Atty. Gen., Thayer Fremont-Smith, City Sol., Keene, for the State.
Emile R. Bussiere, Manchester, for defendant.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Law which has been adopted in this state the defendant was entitled to a hearing (RSA 612:15) and the opportunity to be released on bail (RSA 612:16) both of which have been accorded the defendant. Ex parte Thaw, 1 Cir., 209 F. 954. However the defendant contends that the continuance of the hearing to March 3, 1962 is illegal and 'an unlawful deprivation of due process.' While there is a dearth of authority on the power of the court in an extradition hearing to grant or deny a continuance or adjournment, it has been generally assumed in the cases that such power existed and was to be upheld unless there appeared an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth ex rel. Mills v. Baldi, 166 Pa.Super. 321, 70 A.2d 439. See Handbook on Interstate Crime Control, pp. 32-37 (Council of State Governments, Rev. ed.1955). We find no evidence in the record of the hearing before the Keene municipal court which indicates that there was an abuse of discretion by that court. Riendeau v. Municipal Court of Milford, 104 N.H. ----, 177 A.2d 396 (January 29, 1962). Furthermore the continuance was consistent with the Uniform Act and the provisions of RSA 612:15, 17.
Whether the defendant is a fugitive from justice remains to be decided by the municipal court of Keene at the hearing to be held on March 3, 1962. Hinz v. Perkins, 97 N.H. 114, 82 A.2d 423; Pearson v. Campbell, 97 N.H. 444, 91 A.2d 453. Any decision then made is subject to the defendant's right to file a writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court pursuant to RSA 612:10. Lyon v. Harkness, 1 Cir., 151 F.2d 731; LaBelle v. Hancock, 99 N.H. 254, 108 A.2d 545; Note, Habeas Corpus in Interstate Rendition, 47 Col.L.Rev. 470 (1947).
The statutory authority (RSA 490:4) given the Supreme Court to exercise 'general superintendence' of other courts is broad and comprehensive (State ex rel. Brown v. Knowlton, 102 N.H. 221, 152 A.2d 624; State ex rel. Regan v. Superior Court, 102 N.H. 224, 153 A.2d 403) but we find no occasion to use it in this proceeding at this time. Riendeau v. Milford Municipal Court, 104 N.H. ----, 177 A.2d 396 (January 29, 1962). See Nelson v. Morse, 91 N.H. 177, 16 A.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lakin v. Daniel Marr & Son Co., 83-1498
...... In a diversity action, we measure the excessiveness of a jury award not, as Marr argues, according to the state's standard of review, but according to that ordinarily applied in the federal courts. LaForest v. Autoridad de Las Fuentes Fluviales de Puerto ......
-
State v. Jones
...Finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion, we decline to exercise our general superintending power. See State v. Murray, 104 N.H. 38, 39-40, 178 A.2d 507, 508-09 (1962) (declining to exercise superintending power where court did not abuse its discretion); Patten v. Newton, 102 N.H. 4......
- Pillsbury-Flood v. Portsmouth Hospital
-
State v. La Palme
...by the Court under its power to exercise general superintendence of the judicial process within the state. RSA 490:4; State v. Murray, 104 N.H. ----, 178 A.2d 507. The defendant's motion to dismiss on the ground that a state police officer was permitted to prosecute and also testify as a wi......