Title: Beliajus v. Phillips

State: colorado

Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court

Document:

460 P.2d 233 (1969) Vytautas Finadar BELIAJUS, Plaintiff in Error, v. Howard K. PHILLIPS, Manager of Safety and Ex-Officio Sheriff, City and County of Denver, State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. No. 23482. Supreme Court of Colorado, In Department. November 3, 1969. *234 Leon R. Hetherington, Denver, for plaintiff in error. Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Robert C. Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error. MOORE,[*] Justice. Plaintiff in error will be referred to as the "petitioner." He is here on writ of error to review the judgment of the district court of the City and County of Denver which discharged the writ of habeas corpus issued upon his petition, and remanded him to the custody of the sheriff to be released to authorities of the state of Oregon for return to that state to answer to an indictment accusing him of the crime of sodomy. The only argument presented to this Court as grounds for reversal of the judgment is that: The statute mentioned in the above quotation provides in pertinent substance that no demand for the extradition of a person charged with crime in another state shall be recognized by the governor unless made in writing, alleging certain essential facts, and such demand must be "accompanied by a copy of an indictment found or by information supported by affidavit in the state having jurisdiction of the crime * * *." That statute further provides that: The statute of Oregon (ORS 167.040 [1967 Replacement Part]), upon which the alleged offense is based, reads as follows: The indictment against the petitioner, in pertinent part, alleges that: It is the contention of counsel for petitioner that the indictment does not substantially *235 charge him with the crime of sodomy for the reason that it contains no allegation concerning "proof of actual penetration into the body" of the victim. It is argued that failure to include an allegation upon this subject is fatal to the indictment since under the Oregon statute "actual penetration into the body" is an essential ingredient of the offense. This argument has no merit. We hold that the indictment returned by the Oregon grand jury did "substantially charge" the petitioner with the crime of sodomy. In State v. Anthony, 179 Or. 282, 169 P.2d 587, the Supreme Court of Oregon said: Upon the trial of the issue of guilt, it would doubtless be necessary for the prosecution to prove "actual penetration into the body" of the alleged victim. It is not necessary, however, that the indictment should contain any such allegation. In Capra v. Ballarby, 158 Colo. 91, 405 P.2d 205, we find the following pertinent language: The judgment is affirmed. DAY, HODGES and LEE, JJ., concur. [*] Retired Supreme Court Justice sitting under assignment by the Chief Justice under provisions of Article VI, Section 5(3) of the Constitution of Colorado.