Tucker v. State
| Decision Date | 24 May 1949 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 751. |
| Citation | 41 So.2d 625,34 Ala.App. 477 |
| Parties | TUCKER et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied June 21, 1949.
Smith & Thompkins, of Tuscumbia, for appellants.
A A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen. and Wm. N. McQueen, Asst. Atty Gen. for the State.
This is a joint appeal from a judgment and order of the lower court overruling and denying appellants' petitions for writs of habeas corpus.
For convenience the appellants will hereinafter be referred to as petitioners.
The petitioners were respectively arrested on a governor's extradition warrant issued by James E. Folsom, Governor of Alabama.
The Governor's extradition warrant issued for the arrest of petitioner Herschel Tucker is as follows:
'In the Name and by the Authority of the State of Alabama
'I James E. Folsom Governor of the State
'To Any Sheriff, Coroner, Constable or other Officer authorized by law to make Arrests send Greeting: Whereas, his Excellency, Gordon Browning Governor of the State of Tennessee, by requisition dated the 7th day of March 1949 has demanded of me, as Governor of the State of Alabama, the surrender of Herschel Tucker who, it appears, is charged by warrant, in the county of Obion in said State, with the crime of Grand Larceny (a duly certified copy of which Warrant accompanies said requisition) and it appearing that said Herschel Tucker has fled from justice in said State and taken refuge in the State of Alabama.
'Now Therefore, I, James E. Folsom Governor of the State of Alabama, in obedience to the Constitution and Laws of the United States and the Laws of the State of Alabama, do command you to arrest the said Herschel Tucker if he be found within the limits of this State, and deliver him into the custody of Robert L. Harrison the duly authorized Agent of the State of Tennessee and of the execution of this Warrant you will make due return to me.
'SEAL
'By the Governor
'Sibyl Pool
'Secretary of State
'In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the great Seal of the State to be affixed at the Capitol, in the city of Montgomery, this 10th day of March in the year of our Lord, One Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty-nine and in the One Hundred and Seventy-third year of American Independence.
'James E. Folsom
'Governor of Alabama
'Filed in office this 17 day of Mar. 1949.
Chas. Edgar Young, Clerk.'
The Governor's extradition warrant issued for the arrest of petitioner Spud Bruce is identical with the above warrant except it shows the name Spud Bruce in lieu of Herschel Tucker.
The respective petitions were considered after a joint hearing below. The respondent, Sheriff Potts, in support of his respective answers to each petition introduced in evidence the two warrants above mentioned.
At this point appellants' counsel moved that appellants be discharged from custody on the grounds, among others, that 'there is not shown--a demand by the Governor of Tennessee, and there is no copy of any warrant and affidavit proved against petitioners personally certified according to law;'--and on the further grounds that the Governor's warrant of extradition is not legally sufficient to authorize the detention of petitioners or to make out a prima facie case.
The court denied this motion, to which action petitioners reserved an exception.
The court's action in the premises was correct. The principles dictating such ruling are now well settled and are set forth in detail in the case of State v. Smith, 32 Ala.App. 651, 29 So.2d 438, wherein numerous authorities in support of the view there entertained are set forth. We will not again repeat these principles in the interest of brevity, other than to note that treating the recitals in the Governor's extradition warrants as prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated, as we must do under our decisions, the answers of the respondent supported by the warrants introduced in evidence were sufficient prima facie to justify the respondent's detention of the petitioners. State v. Smith, supra.
It appears from the record that the respondent did not rest at this point, as he might well have done, but proceeded to introduce further evidence.
Clarence Riddle, a commercial fisherman operating on Reel Foot Lake in Tennessee, stated that on the night of 11 February 1949 some 15...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holcomb v. State
...issue, only whether he was in fact the person named in the extradition papers. Our position is stated most accurately in Tucker v. State, 34 Ala.App. 477, 41 So.2d 625, as 'We of course are not here concerned with the guilt or innocence of the petitioners but only with their extraditable st......
-
State v. Freeman, 7 Div. 757
...warrant, if it contains all the necessary jurisdictional recitals. State v. Smith, 32 Ala.App. 651, 29 So.2d 438; Tucker v. State, 34 Ala.App. 477, 41 So.2d 625; Blanton v. State, 35 Ala.App. 591, 50 So.2d 786; Denson v. State, 36 Ala.App. 216, 57 So.2d 830; Baugh v. State, Sup.Ct., 154 So.......
- Martin v. State
-
Denson v. State, 6 Div. 132
...pursuant to such warrant. Walker v. State, 35 Ala.App. 612, 51 So.2d 266; State v. Smith, 32 Ala.App. 651, 29 So.2d 438; Tucker v. State, 34 Ala.App. 477, 41 So.2d 625; Blanton v. State, 35 Ala.App. 561, 50 So.2d It is earnestly argued that unless the affidavit or indictment be attached to ......