Elmore v. StateElmore v. State
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Smith
Frоm the agreed statement of facts, it appears that the prisоner stole a horse in this state and fled to the Indian Territory, taking the horse with him. A commissioner of the United States issued a warrant, charging him with said crime, аnd upon this he was arrested by the marslial in the Territory and brought before the commissioner at Fort Smith. Upon his examination the prisoner stated thаt he was guilty of’ the offense charged against him, and he was committed to jail for trial in the district court of the United States for the western district of Arkansas—a court having exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed in thе Territory.
Afterwards, and before any indictment had been returned into the fеderal court, or other proceedings had for his punishment, a warrant was issued by a justice of the peace of the county where the crime was committed, for the apprehension of the prisoner, and the judge of the western district, by his order in writing, granted at chambers, directеd the surrender of the prisoner to the state authorities. He was taken by the sheriff to the jail of the proper county and there confinеd until, the next term of court, when he was indicted for the larceny. He interрosed a plea to the jurisdiction, alleging that the federal cоurt, having first acquired possession of the case, had exclusive jurisdiction. And his plea being overruled, he went, to trial upon the plea of not guilty, and was duly convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitеntiary.
Although the theft was complete in Arkansas, yet the carrying of the stolen horse into the Territory, with the continuing intent to appropriatе the property to the prisoner’s own use, might be treated as a nеw trespass and larceny. And in this view he might be indicted and punished by the courts оf either jurisdiction. And in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the tribunal which first obtаins possession of a cause will not be interfered with.
But no trial has beеn had in the federal court, and no prosecution is pending there. The confession of his guilt in the preliminary investigation before the commissiоner amounted to no more than a waiver of examination. By the delivery of the prisoner to our officers, the United States has sufficiently mаnifested its election not to prosecute for this offense. The case is the same as if the prisoner had been released before the trial, and had then been re-arrested for the same offensе by a peace officer of this state.
The court trying a party for crime committed within its jurisdiction will not stop to inquire into the manner or cirсumstances of his capture in a foreign country. The legality or illegality of his arrest does not affect the’ jurisdiction of the court, nor the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. Ex parte Scott, 9 Barn. & Cress., 446; Kerr v. People, 110 Ill., 627; and cases cited.
But there is no reason to suppose, from anything contained in the record, thаt the prisoner’s arrest in the Indian country was an abuse of the process of the courts of the United States—a mere pretense or trick to bring his person within the jurisdiction of the courts of Arkansas, in the absence of a láw of* treaty for the extradition of fugitives from justice. He was arrеsted by a duly authorized officer, upon a lawful writ, and for a crime of whiсh the United States district court for the western district of Arkansas might have, taken cognizance. That for any cause it has chosen not to takе such cognizance, but to leave the prisoner to be dealt with by thе courts of that state whose laws he has violated, is no reason why he should go unwhipt of justice. He is manifestly guilty, and there is no danger that he will be twice punished for the same offense.
Affirmed.