Reeves v. CoxReeves v. Cox
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Lampron
This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under
The plaintiff raises two issues on this appeal: (1) Whether the requisition papers from Utah are inadequate on their face,
An extradition proceeding can be divided into two phases: the proceedings before the Governor of the asylum State, and the challenge to extradition by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In the first phase, the Governor is presented with certain documents from the demanding State,
The issue presented by the plaintiff requires us to determine how much the requisition papers themselves have to describe the person sought to be extradited in order to be valid even before identity is placed in issue at a habeas hearing. We have considered this question before, and have stated that the papers are sufficient if they contain the name of the person and the date and place of the offense. Thomas v. O’Brien, 98 N.H. 111, 95 A.2d 120 (1953). We find no reason to increase the minimum requirements of identification supplied by the requisitioning State in the papers. This is analogous to the arrest warrant situation where an individual’s name alone is a sufficient description of the person. See West v. Cabell, 153 U.S. 78 (1894); United States v. Jarvis, 560 F.2d 494 (2d Cir. 1977); People v. Montoya, 255 Cal. App. 2d 137, 63 Cal. Rptr. 73 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1007 (1968); F. Wharton, Criminal Procedure § 55 (12th ed. 1974). A different result would be required in this case if the requisition papers did not specifically name the person, or used a fictitious name, e.g., John Doe. Lee Gim Bor v. Ferrari, 55 F.2d 86 (1st Cir. 1932); see 31 Am. Jur. 2d Extradition § 37 (1967); F. Wharton, supra § 114. But see Cook v. Rodgers, 215 Ind. 500, 20 N.E.2d 933 (1939).
This does not end the inquiry of identity, however, for the person who is arrested has the right, through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, to question whether he is the person named in the requisition papers.
Hinz v. Perkins, 91
N.H. 114, 82 A.2d 423 (1951);
see
The plaintiff’s contentions that the trial court admitted improper evidence are without merit. The plaintiff challenges the use of an affidavit of a police officer from Salt Lake City, Utah. The officer states in the affidavit that he was one of the arresting officers in Utah, *275 and “consequently got a very good look at him.” The Utah officer also states that he was in New Hampshire in May 1977 in order to testify at the habeas corpus hearing; however, the hearing was postponed at the request of plaintiff’s counsel and the officer had to return to Utah. While he was waiting to testify, the officer states in the affidavit, he had an opportunity to observe the plaintiff for over two and one-half hours, and “[t]here is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Steven Wayne Reeves I saw sitting in the Merrimack County Courtroom was the same Steven Reeves I arrested on March 22,1976, in Salt Lake City, Utah.”
The plaintiff’s first argument concerning the affidavit is that it is inadmissible because it was not authenticated by the Governor of Utah in accordance with
Plaintiff’s second contention is that the affidavit is hearsay which is inadmissible. We disagree. A habeas corpus proceeding contesting extradition is a summary proceeding in which very narrow issues can be raised by the plaintiff. The strictures of the trial rules of evidence are not applicable. 1 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 4(6) (3d ed. 1945). The issue here is whether this is the person who is charged in the demanding State and whose extradition is requested. The guilt or innocence of the plaintiff is not at issue.
The plaintiff also argues that the Utah officer’s affidavit is inadmissible because the identification of plaintiff was in violation of his sixth amendment rights in that his counsel was not present. This argument also lacks merit. This was not a critical stage of a criminal prosecution. See United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967); Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967); Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972). There is no need to import such exclusionary principles into an extradition proceeding. United States v. Flood, 374 F.2d 554 (2d Cir. 1967).
Plaintiff’s last contention involves his fifth amendment rights. At the hearing the plaintiff introduced his birth certificate to show that his birth date is April 14, 1952, and not April 14, 1947, as stated in the requisition papers. The State introduced evidence that the plaintiff had, on four separate occasions, stated to New Hampshire authorities that his birth date is April 14, 1947. The State also introduced testimony of a conversation the plaintiff requested with a New Hampshire police officer from which it could be concluded that plaintiff admitted being the person named in the requisition papers. The plaintiff claims that these statements should have been excluded under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Miranda has been held not to apply to habeas corpus hearings which are incident to extradition proceedings. United States v. Flood supra. Because the guilt or innocence of the plaintiff is not at issue, we agree with the Flood court and hold that Miranda does not apply to extradition proceedings.
The evidence before the trial court, i.e., the requisition papers, the affidavit of the Utah police officer, and the plaintiff’s admissions, is sufficient to support the court’s finding that the plaintiff is the person sought.
We note that this is the third case involving the sufficiency of rendition papers to reach this court in a little more than a year. See Clement v. Cox, 118 N.H. 246, 385 A.2d 841 (1978); Smith v. Helgemoe, 117 N.H. 91, 369 A.2d 218 (1977). Although we upheld the sufficiency of the papers in Smith, the federal district court thereafter held them to be insufficient. Smith v. Helgemoe, No. 77-59 (D.N.H. 1977). In Cox we held the papers to be insufficient. All these cases involved hearings in at least two courts, and Smith involved three courts.
*277 These cases illustrate the needless use of scarce judicial time and energy as well as the unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer money in the litigation process. The issues raised in all three cases could have been eliminated by the quick, simple, and inexpensive acquisition of new papers that supplied the alleged defects. In this case, for example, a simple photograph of the plaintiff in the requisition papers may have satisfied the plaintiff that he is the person Utah seeks to answer for a crime. In such situations, there exists a duty by the State to avoid needless litigation.
Exceptions overruled.
All concurred.