In Re Katcher

California Supreme Court May 13, 1952 No. Crim. 5319Published

Before: Spence

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that because there was a reasonable basis for the Arizona charges, the petitioner's habeas corpus challenge to extradition must be denied, leaving the determination of the crime's validity to the courts of the demanding state.

Issues

Whether the requisition documents show on their face that the petitioner committed no crime in the demanding state.
Whether the court should resolve doubts regarding the sufficiency of the criminal charges in an extradition proceeding.

Disposition. Writ discharged and petitioner remanded to custody.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Unless a reasonable basis for what they say is lacking altogether, unless the indictment is so frivolous or contradictory as to be a presentment of innocence rather than of crime, we do not go beyond the documents when flight is once established.”

“In the presence of a reasonable doubt we must allow such doubt to be resolved by the courts of the demanding state.”

[31]

SPENCE, J.

Petitioner, who is held by virtue of a warrant of extradition issued by the governor of this state, seeks his release on habeas corpus.

Petitioner’s sole contention is that “the requisition of the Governor of Arizona ... on its face shows that . . . petitioner committed no crime in the State of Arizona. ...” The requisition shows that petitioner is charged with two counts of violating section 43-2613 of the Penal Code of Arizona which provides: “Every person who . . . wilfully, with intent to defraud, makes or draws or utters or delivers to another person any check or draft on a bank, or depositary for the payment of money, knowing at the time of such making, drawing, uttering, or delivery, that he . . . has not sufficient funds in, or credit with such bank or depositary, to meet such check or draft in full upon its presentation is guilty of a crime. ...”

The charges against petitioner are based on two instruments which petitioner allegedly delivered to one Mikel Echeverría with intent to defraud. The instruments are two sight drafts signed by petitioner and addressed in the lower left-hand corner:

To L. Katcher

Bank of America

Los Angeles Calif.

It is petitioner’s contention that the manner of addressing used on the drafts shows conclusively that they were not drawn on a bank or depositary for the payment of money, and that the requisition therefore shows on its face that no crime was committed in Arizona. This contention cannot be sustained.

The applicable rule was stated by Chief Judge Cardozo in

People ex rel. Hayes

McLaughlin,

247 N.Y. 238, 241 [160 N.E. 357, 358], as follows: “The question is whether ‘the fugitive has been in fact, however inartificially, charged with crime in the state from which he has fled’

(Pierce

In Re Katcher

AI Brief

SPENCE, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief