Title: Storms v. Lambert
Citation: 224 Or. 189, 355 P.2d 766
Docket Number: N/A
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: October 5, 1960

Affirmed October 5, 1960.
Howard R. Lonergan, Portland, argued the cause and submitted a brief for appellant.
Oscar D. Howlett, Assistant District Attorney, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Charles E. Raymond, District Attorney, Portland.
*190 Before McALLISTER, Chief Justice, and ROSSMAN, SLOAN, O'CONNELL, GOODWIN and HOWELL, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
SLOAN, J.
Plaintiff was arrested upon a Governor's warrant for extradition to Idaho. Oregon's procedure for extradition is governed by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act found in ORS ch 147. Plaintiff applied to the circuit court of Multnomah county for a writ of habeas corpus as provided by ORS 147.100. Plaintiff contended he was not a fugitive from justice from Idaho and that the affidavit which identified him as the person charged with the commission of a felony in Idaho was false. He demanded a trial by jury to determine the facts and the trial court denied the request. The trial court denied the writ of habeas corpus. Plaintiff appeals. The question presented by plaintiff is stated in his brief:
*191 ORS 147.100 provides:
Plaintiff is wrong. The only issue decided by the court in a proceeding governed by the above statute is limited to the validity of the prisoner's arrest. The requirements for a legal arrest in an extradition proceeding are found in ORS 147.050. They are:
*192 Section 147.200 of the extradition act is also pertinent:
This court has considered the duty of the court in this respect before:
In Defoe v. Pratt, 1946, 179 Or 334, 348, 170 P2d 383, we said: "Whether the prosecution of plaintiff is actuated by malice or in good faith, merely presents a question of credibility to be accorded to or withheld from the testimony of the prosecutrix; and in effect bears exclusively upon the guilt or innocence of plaintiff." For other cases to like effect see "The Handbook on Interstate Crime Control" (rev ed) 1955, published by the Council of State Governments, at p 35.
*193 The decision of the court is not, therefore, res judicata to those issues of falsity or malice which would be germane to an action for false arrest or malicious prosecution. Plaintiff is not barred from jury determination as to such issues in any action of the kind that may be available to him.
The judgment is affirmed.