State v. Wall

• Decision Date: 28 October 1932
• Docket Number: No. 29313.,29313.
• Citation: 244 N.W. 811,187 Minn. 246
• Parties: STATE ex rel. SHAPIRO v. WALL, Sheriff.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

244 N.W. 811

187 Minn. 246

STATE ex rel. SHAPIRO v. WALL, Sheriff.

No. 29313.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

October 28, 1932.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Mathias Baldwin, Judge.

Habeas corpus proceedings by the State of Minnesota, on the relation of John Shapiro, against John P. Wall, Sheriff of Hennepin County. From an order discharging the writ of habeas corpus, the relator appeals.

Writ of habeas corpus discharged, and the relator remanded to custody.

E. S. Cary and Benj. M. Rigler, both of Minneapolis, for appellant.

Henry N. Benson, Atty. Gen., James E. Markham, Dep. Atty. Gen., and Ed J. Goff, Co. Atty., of Minneapolis, for respondent.

LORING, J.

In July, 1925, the relator was indicted in the state of Illinois for an offense committed therein in January of that year. He was later indicted by the federal court in that state for another offense and tried and convicted thereof. He was sent to the federal prison at Leavenworth, Kan., and while he was serving the sentence imposed by the federal court he was removed by the federal authorities to the state of Illinois at the request of the Illinois authorities and there tried for the offense against the state. After his conviction he was returned to Kansas to finish his term in the federal penitentiary. Upon his discharge from that prison he was arrested at the request of the Governor of Illinois upon an extradition warrant and held by the Kansas authorities. He thereupon sued out a writ of habeas corpus and was thereunder discharged from custody upon the theory that he was not a fugitive from justice and could not under the Federal Constitution and acts of Congress be returned to Illinois. The case was appealed to the district court in Kansas, which in turn reached a like decision. The relator then removed to this state and was again arrested upon a rendition warrant and again sued out a writ of habeas corpus which was discharged in the district court of Hennepin county. The case is here upon appeal to be tried de novo.

The relator raises two questions: First that he is not a fugitive from justice; and, second, that the decision of the Kansas court to that effect is res adjudicate and binding upon us.

1. The relator contends that inasmuch as he was taken from the state of Illinois to the state of Kansas on both occasions by force and has not since been within the boundaries of the state of Illinois, he is not a fugitive and that he has a safe and permanent asylum in this state. The second paragraph of section 2 of article 4 of the Constitution of the United States provides: "A person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime."

Section 5278 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, now section 662, title 18, USCA, p. 284, makes provision for putting this part of the Constitution into effect. Has the relator "fled from justice" in the sense that the words are used by the framers of the Constitution and in the acts of Congress? In the construction of these provisions we are bound by the views of the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of Appleyard v. Massachusetts, 203 U. S. 222, 227, 228, 27 S. Ct. 122, 123, 51 L. Ed. 161, 7 Ann. Cas. 1073, that court said: "So that the simple inquiry must be whether the person whose surrender is demanded is in fact a fugitive from justice, not whether he consciously fled from justice in order to avoid prosecution for the crime with which he is charged by the demanding state. A person charged by indictment or by affidavit before a magistrate with the commission within a state of a crime covered by its laws, and who, after the date of the commission of such crime, leaves the state,—no matter for what purpose or with what motive, nor under what belief,—becomes, from the time of such leaving, and within the meaning of the Constitution and the laws of the United States, a fugitive from justice, and if found in another state must be delivered up by the governor of such state to the state whose laws are alleged to have been violated, on the production of such indictment or affidavit, certified as authentic by the governor of the state from which the accused departed. Such is the command of the supreme law of the land, which may not be disregarded by any state. The constitutional provision relating to fugitives from justice, as the history of its adoption will show, is in the nature of a treaty stipulation entered into for the purpose of securing a prompt and efficient administration of the criminal laws of the several states,—an object of the first concern to the people of the entire country, and which each state is bound, in fidelity to the Constitution, to recognize. A faithful, vigorous enforcement of that stipulation is vital to the harmony and welfare of the states. And while a state should take care, within the limits of the law, that the rights of its people are protected against illegal action, the judicial authorities of the Union should equally take care that the provisions of the Constitution be not so narrowly interpreted as to enable offenders against the laws of a state to find a permanent asylum in the territory of another state."

In the case of Roberts v. Reilly, 116 U. S. 80, 97, 6 S. Ct. 291, 300, 29 L. Ed. 544, the court held one to be a fugitive from justice who has committed a crime within a state and "when he is sought to be subjected to its criminal process to answer for his offense, he has left its jurisdiction, and is found within the territory of another." Our own court in State ex rel. v. Richter, 37 Minn. 436, 438, 35 N. W. 9, 10, speaking through Mr. Justice Mitchell, in regard to Roberts v. Reilly, said:

"The meaning of this language is unmistakable, viz.: That the...