2023 New Mexico Statutes › Chapter 31 - Criminal Procedure › Article 4 - Extradition › Section 31-4-3 - Form of demand.

No demand for the extradition of a person charged with crime in another state shall be recognized by the governor unless in writing, alleging, except in cases arising under Section 6 [31-4-6 NMSA 1978], that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, and that thereafter he fled from the state, and accompanied by a copy of an indictment found or by information supported by affidavit in the state having jurisdiction of the crime, or by a copy of an affidavit made before a magistrate there, together with a copy of any warrant which was issued thereupon; or by a copy of a judgment of conviction or of a sentence imposed in execution thereof, together with a statement by the executive authority of the demanding state that the person claimed has escaped from confinement or has broken the terms of his bail, probation or parole. The indictment, information or affidavit made before the magistrate must substantially charge the person demanded with having committed a crime under the law of that state; and the cpoy [copy] of indictment, information, affidavit, judgment of conviction or sentence must be authenticated by the executive authority making the demand.
History:
Laws 1937, ch. 65, § 3; 1941 Comp., § 42-1903; 1953 Comp., § 41-19-3.
ANNOTATIONS
District court not authorized to review issues beyond scope of demanding documents.
— Language in this section requiring the indictment, information or affidavit to "substantially charge the person demanded with having committed a crime" does not authorize the district court to go beyond the charging documents and review issues that should be litigated in the state demanding extradition.
Hopper v. State ex rel. Schiff
, 1984-NMSC-034, 101 N.M. 71, 678 P.2d 699.
Error held harmless where documentation eventually provided.
— In a proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the petitioner's extradition to Ohio, there was no harm in the fact that the parties may have been served with incomplete documentation since the missing documents were eventually provided.
Reed v. State ex rel. Ortiz
, 1997-NMSC-055, 124 N.M. 129, 947 P.2d 86,
rev'd on other grounds
, 524 U.S. 151, 118 S. Ct. 1860, 141 L. Ed. 2d 131 (1998).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. —
31A Am. Jur. 2d Extradition §§ 67 to 89.
Extradition of one who violates parole, 78 A.L.R. 419.
Recitals in rendition warrant as to copy of indictment or affidavit, sufficiency of, 89 A.L.R. 595.
Allegation or proof of presence of accused in demanding state at time of commission of alleged crime or that accused is a fugitive, sufficiency of statements in demanding papers as to, 135 A.L.R. 973.
Statute authorizing extradition of one who commits an act within the state or a third state resulting in a crime in the demanding state, constitutionality, construction and application of, 151 A.L.R. 239.
Modern status of rule relating to jurisdiction of state court to try criminal defendant brought within jurisdiction illegal or as result of fraud or mistake, 25 A.L.R.4th 157.
35 C.J.S. Extradition § 16 et seq.