Court Opinion

ID: 9884696
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:08:45.892281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:40.130293
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice Hershey, dissenting: Although holding that the supporting papers cured any defect in the Governor’s warrant, the court concludes that the writ of habeas corpus was properly allowed because of a “contradiction” between the demand of the Governor of Michigan and the papers accompanying such demand. The court reads section 3 of our uniform act as precluding the Governor of Illinois from recognizing the demand under these circumstances. In my opinion, this result is not justified by the language of section 3, and to construe our statute as requiring this result raises serious constitutional problems which the opinion of the court fails to recognize. In the first place, the demand of the Governor of Michigan does literally comply with the requirements of our statute. With respect to what documents must accompany the demand, section 3 specifies three alternatives, compliance with any one of which is sufficient. The second alternative is “a copy of an affidavit made before a magistrate, together with a copy of any warrant which was issued thereupon.” Here the demand was accompanied by copies of such affidavit and warrant. Thus there was a literal compliance with the statute. The “contradiction” between the recitals of the demand and the supporting papers does not exist. The demand, which, incidentally, is not required to state what it is accompanied by, recites that it is accompanied by a complaint and warrant. It is accompanied by a complaint and warrant. Thus there is no contradiction, and, even if there were, it would be immaterial so long as the demand was, in fact, accompanied by papers satisfying one of the alternative statutory requirements. Since the demand is accompanied by a warrant and by a complaint which is in the form of an affidavit made before a magistrate, there has been in fact a literal compliance with the second statutory alternative, namely, “a copy of an affidavit made before a magistrate together with a copy of any warrant which was issued thereupon.” This is all that the statute requires and, had the demand been accompanied by nothing more, it would have been sufficient. But, because the demand was also accompanied by another affidavit indicating that relator had been convicted and had broken the terms of his bail, the court concludes that the third statutory alternative should have been employed and that the demand should here so recite. What the court actually holds is that, even though the demand of the Governor of Michigan complied with the second of the documentary alternatives provided in the statute, the third alternative would have been more apropriate, and, under these circumstances, the Governor of Illinois should not have recognized the demand. But the statute permits the use of any of the three alternatives; it does not require the Governor of Illinois to refuse to recognize the demand unless the Governor of Michigan has used the particular alternative deemed most appropriate by this court. The rendition warrant considered with the supporting-papers in evidence clearly showed a prima facie case for extradition and a substantial compliance with all statutory requirements. From the warrant and supporting papers, it is apparent that there was an information supported by affidavit as well as an affidavit sworn to before a magistrate upon which warrant issued, certified to as authentic by the demanding Governor. The fact that the papers also showed a conviction and violation of bail does not contradict, negate, or render insufficient the other grounds shown justifying issuance of the rendition warrant; if anything, it strengthens them. A person remains "charged with a crime” within the meaning of the Federal and Illinois extradition statutes even after conviction and even while on parole from such conviction. (People ex rel. Holmes v. Babb, 414 Ill. 490; People ex rel. Westbrook v. O’Neill, 378 Ill. 324.) Where the rendition warrant and the supporting papers in evidence show one or more grounds required by the statute to exist, this is sufficient. Here there is no question that relator is charged with a crime in the State of Michigan; there is no question that he is a fugitive from justice from that State; there is no question but that the State of Michigan is entitled to his return. Despite this, the majority protests that its decision is not based upon a mere technicality. In my opinion, not only is the decision based upon a technicality, but it is a technicality created by the court and having no justification in the statute. Moreover, the construction here given by this court to section 3 of our uniform act suggests serious constitutional questions not recognized in the majority opinion. It is clear, and this court has always held, that interstate rendition is based upon the constitution and laws of the United States. Thus, in People ex rel. Hackler v. Lohman, 17 Ill.2d 78, we said, at page 84, that the Federal act “establishes ‘a complete, expeditious and summary procedure for returning a fugitive from the asylum to the demanding State’ * * * and that the statute should be accorded a liberal construction to accomplish the return of the fugitive summarily.” We further stated that “While it is generally recognized that States mav enact legislation ancillary to and in aid of this provision of the United States constitution and its supplementary Federal legislation, it is also well settled that such enactments must not be inconsistent with the constitutional purpose or restrict the summary exercise of the authority of the executive. [Citations.] State legislation in conflict with the intent and meaning of the Federal constitutional provision is void.” Here, the majority has construed our statute as requiring a result exactly the opposite of what would have been the result under the constitution and laws of the United States in the absence of any State legislation. It is difficult to see how a statute, so construed, can be sustained as “ancillary to and in aid of” the Federal constitution and statutes. Moreover, implicit in the court’s opinion, although nowhere recognized therein, is a further constitutional question concerning the power of the legislature to restrict the authority of the executive with respect to what demands he may recognize. In my opinion, the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded with directions to quash the writ and remand the relator to custody.