Court Opinion

ID: 9698329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:47:52.392538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:40.003768
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice,
concurring.
This case does not present to us the serious constitutional question which the majority undertakes to answer: whether relator is entitled to a presentation in this forum of probable cause that he committed the crime with which he is charged before he may be extradited to South Carolina. The evidence in the record is sufficient to establish such probable cause. Thus regardless whether relator’s constitutional argument or his proposed constitutionally limited interpretation of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, Act of July 8, 1941, P.L. 288, § 1 et seq., 19 P.S. § 191.1 et seq., is correct, he is not entitled to relief. I therefore concur in the result.
EAGEN, C. J., and NIX, J., join in this concurring opinion.