Court Opinion

ID: 9670897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:27:54.314773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:07.115883
License: Public Domain

Brickley, J.
(concurring). I fully agree with Justice Kavanagh’s conclusion that MCL 780.3a; MSA 28.1285(3-1/2) requires that the act committed by the accused in the asylum state must have been done with the intent that the crime result in the requesting state.
In the case at bar, the Maryland request for extradition is based largely on the affidavit of Maryland Police Officer Donald Maiers. Officer Maiers concluded his affidavit as follows:
"Your affiant believes, based on his personal observations, interviews conducted, and information received, [that] Marvin Robert Deur had intentionally and knowingly adopted and enforced a policy of poor maintenance of the vehicle leased to Direct Transit, Inc., and other vehicles similarly leased. These activities of Deur directly contributed to the incident which resulted in the death of three persons in Frostburg, Maryland, on February 18, 1981.”
Notwithstanding these broad allegations, there is nothing in the affidavit or any other of the *450requesting papers which indicates that plaintiff committed an act in Michigan which he intended to result in a crime in Maryland. Regardless of plaintiffs allegedly poor maintenance practices in Michigan, the extradition request and accompanying documents do nothing to establish that these practices were carried out with the intent that a crime result in Maryland. The question is not whether plaintiff intentionally used poor maintenance in Michigan, but whether he intended his actions to result in a crime in Maryland.
Thus, absent adequate allegations in the extradition papers,1 plaintiff is entitled to habeas corpus relief.
Even though the extradition request is currently invalid, I cannot agree with my brother’s conclusion that "it is apparent from the facts that Mr. Deur did not commit any act in the State of Michigan intentionally resulting in the crime with which he is charged in the State of Maryland.” Because the extradition request is facially invalid I would avoid any inquiry into whether Deur actually committed acts in Michigan which were intended to result in a crime in Maryland. Such an inquiry in this case inevitably results in an examination of the evidence unnecessary to our holding at this time.
*451I further note that it is unnecessary to address plaintiffs argument that the rule announced in In re Doran, 401 Mich 235; 258 NW2d 406 (1977), reversed in Michigan v Doran, 439 US 282; 99 S Ct 530; 58 L Ed 2d 521 (1978), is still viable in Michigan in non-fugitive extradition cases. This Court in Doran based its conclusion on constitutional principles, and it is well settled that this Court will decline to answer federal constitutional issues if state statutory relief is available.
I would hold that the extradition papers are inadequate under MCL 780.3a; MSA 28.1285(3-1/2) and save all other questions for another day.

 We note that the extradition request from the Governor of Maryland stated:
"that Marvin Robert Deur under the Laws of this State stands charged with the crime of manslaughter by motor vehicle which I certify to be a crime under the Laws of this State, by intentionally committing an act in the State of Michigan resulting in said crime in this State.”
On the other hand, Lawrence V. Kelly, State Attorney for Allegheny County, Maryland, in his application for requisition addressed to his Governor alleged that the plaintiff
"committed an act or acts on or about the 1st day of May, 1980, thru [sic] the 18th day of February, 1981, in the State of Michigan which intentionally resulted in commission of said crime in the said County of this State.”