How presence of accused in demanding state when crime committed ascertained.

- Whether or not the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime may be ascertained from the demand as well as from the accompanying documents. Mitchell v. Dodd, 238 Ga. 638, 235 S.E.2d 15 (1977).

All reasonable presumptions are indulged to sustain the sufficiency of the instrument charging the crime. Baker v. Smith, 233 Ga. 644, 212 S.E.2d 819 (1975).

Mere defects overlooked so long as charge constitutes a crime.

- So long as the charge made against one whose extradition is sought legally constitutes a crime, mere defects in the indictment as an instrument of criminal proceedings will be disregarded. Baker v. Smith, 233 Ga. 644, 212 S.E.2d 819 (1975).

Demand based solely on warrant for arrest is insufficient.

- Demand for extradition must be based not on a warrant for arrest but on an indictment, on information supported by affidavit, or on an affidavit made before a magistrate together with any warrant for arrest issued thereon. The thrust of this rule is not directed so much to the recitals in the extradition warrant as to the fact that an arrest warrant without more is not sufficient. Carver v. Stynchcombe, 243 Ga. 477, 254 S.E.2d 856 (1979).

Indictment for escape not required.

- There is no requirement that the fugitive be separately indicted for escape or that there be an affidavit before a magistrate attesting to the escape. McLeod v. Barrett, 271 Ga. 569, 522 S.E.2d 219 (1999).

If indictment accompanies requisition, this state will make no further determination as to probable cause.

- If a copy of an indictment accompanies the requisition, no further determination of the existence of probable cause to arrest will be made by this state for in the interest of comity and the expeditious administration of justice the state will rely on the official representation that probable cause to arrest has been constitutionally found in the demanding state. Batton v. Griffin, 241 Ga. 548, 246 S.E.2d 667 (1978).

Foreign state's indictment sufficient to describe circumstance of crime's committal.

- Indictment from another state substantially charging the person demanded with having committed a crime under the law of the foreign state, as required by O.C.G.A. § 17-13-23, sufficiently describes the "circumstance of its committal" as required by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, O.C.G.A. § 17-13-20 et seq. Grubbs v. Stynchcombe, 251 Ga. 39, 302 S.E.2d 552 (1983).

Requirement that signature of prosecutor or prosecuting officer appear on indictment.

- It is not necessary that the requisition show that the prosecutor's name has been endorsed on the back of the indictment or that the indictment has been signed by the proper prosecuting officer, although these matters may be required by the statutes of the demanding state. Baker v. Smith, 233 Ga. 644, 212 S.E.2d 819 (1975).

Witnesses need not be listed on the information. Baker v. Smith, 233 Ga. 644, 212 S.E.2d 819 (1975).

Recitation in requisition that it is accompanied by affidavit.

- It is not necessary that the requisition or the governor's warrant recite that the requisition is accompanied by an affidavit made before a magistrate. Wollweber v. Martin, 226 Ga. 20, 172 S.E.2d 605 (1970).

No warrant need accompany affidavit, unless warrant was issued.

- Affidavit is a supporting document of the Governor's requisition. It does not need to be accompanied by a warrant unless in fact a warrant was issued. Gramlick v. Griffin, 230 Ga. 20, 195 S.E.2d 446 (1973).

Affidavit not rendered insufficient by reason of fact that warrant does not issue.

- If no warrant is in fact issued upon the affidavit which accompanies the requisition, then the affidavit is not rendered insufficient by reason of that fact. Gramlick v. Griffin, 230 Ga. 20, 195 S.E.2d 446 (1973).

Affidavit made and sworn to by the prosecuting attorney, which asserts that the prosecutor knows the contents of the information and believes the contents to be true, is sufficient. Baker v. Smith, 233 Ga. 644, 212 S.E.2d 819 (1975).

Necessity for certification of affidavit by judge or clerk of court.

- If the affidavit of complaint upon which extradition is sought shows that it was made before a magistrate, it is not necessary that a judge or clerk of court certify that such was the case. Wollweber v. Martin, 226 Ga. 20, 172 S.E.2d 605 (1970).

Sufficiency of information supported by affidavit which lacks notarial seal.

- Information supported by affidavits which are executed in the presence of a notary public and authenticated by the Governor of another state, although lacking a notarial seal, is sufficient to authorize the warrant of the Governor of Georgia. Baker v. Smith, 233 Ga. 644, 212 S.E.2d 819 (1975).

Affidavit sworn to before a named person designated as "notary public, county prosecutor or county judge" is a description sufficient to show that such person was a "magistrate" within the meaning of Ga. L. 1951, p. 726, § 3 (see O.C.G.A. § 17-13-23). Bryant v. Griffin, 220 Ga. 154, 137 S.E.2d 640 (1964).

Evidentiary facts need not be stated in the affidavit. Wollweber v. Martin, 226 Ga. 20, 172 S.E.2d 605 (1970).

Sufficiency of averment that relator was in demanding state when crime committed.

- When a requisition for extradition incorporates by reference an attached authenticated copy of an indictment of the demanding state, specifically charging the relator with having committed a crime in that state on a day certain, and if the requisition asserts that the relator fled from the demanding state, the requisition has sufficiently averred that the relator was in the demanding state at the time the crime was committed. Mitchell v. Dodd, 238 Ga. 638, 235 S.E.2d 15 (1977).

Sufficiency of papers supported by affidavit executed before notary public.

- Extradition papers, otherwise admittedly in order, are not insufficient if accompanied by an information and an affidavit in support thereof executed in the presence of a notary public rather than an affidavit executed before a magistrate. Nevil v. Tyson, 230 Ga. 438, 197 S.E.2d 340 (1973).

Habeas corpus petition to challenge warrant.

- Detainee who was arrested pursuant to a fugitive warrant could challenge through a petition for habeas corpus the factual basis of the allegation that the detainee was present in the demanding state at the time of the crime. St. Lawrence v. Bartley, 269 Ga. 94, 495 S.E.2d 18 (1998).

Not error to deny habeas corpus and remand for delivery to demanding state if section complied with.

- If no question is presented or raised as to the legality or the sufficiency of the documents originally transmitted by the Governor of the demanding state, and if those documents, together with the demand of the Governor of the demanding state for extradition, comply in all respects with the requirements of this section, it is not error for the trial court to deny the habeas corpus and to remand the petitioner to the custody of the sheriff for delivery over to the proper authorities of the demanding state. DeWitt v. O'Neal, 225 Ga. 645, 171 S.E.2d 144 (1969).

Erroneous issuance of warrant grounds for relief.

- In a habeas corpus proceeding, if it was shown that the Governor issued an extradition warrant pursuant to the mandatory terms of the Constitution and O.C.G.A. § 17-13-23, i.e., with the understanding that the petitioner had committed a crime in the demanding state and had fled therefrom, relief should have been granted based on a stipulation that the petitioner had not committed a crime while in the demanding state. Jenkins v. Garrison, 265 Ga. 42, 453 S.E.2d 698 (1995).

Extradition of one at large on bail pending appeal of federal conviction.

- One at large on bail pending appeal of one's federal conviction can be extradited by a sister state for the purpose of serving sentences imposed by that state. Extradition under such circumstances does not violate constitutional due process rights of the party extradited. Crane v. State, 233 Ga. 264, 210 S.E.2d 800 (1974).

Defendant was not fugitive from justice.

- Because a detainee who was arrested pursuant to a fugitive warrant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the detainee was not present in the demanding state at the time of the crime, the habeas court did not err in finding that the detainee was not a fugitive from justice. St. Lawrence v. Bartley, 269 Ga. 94, 495 S.E.2d 18 (1998).

Cited in West v. Graham, 211 Ga. 662, 87 S.E.2d 849 (1955); Winslow v. Grimes, 214 Ga. 262, 104 S.E.2d 76 (1958); Clonts v. Stynchcombe, 229 Ga. 672, 194 S.E.2d 94 (1972); Watson v. Stynchcombe, 240 Ga. 169, 240 S.E.2d 56 (1977); Harris v. Massey, 241 Ga. 580, 247 S.E.2d 55 (1978); Frazier v. Rutledge, 243 Ga. 39, 252 S.E.2d 465 (1979); Ingram v. Dodd, 243 Ga. 788, 256 S.E.2d 778 (1979); Brown v. State, 243 Ga. App. 430, 533 S.E.2d 453 (2000); Powell v. Brown, 281 Ga. 609, 641 S.E.2d 519 (2007).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 31A Am. Jur. 2d, Extradition, § 68 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 35 C.J.S. (Rev), Extradition and Detainers, §§ 19, 20, 25 et seq.

U.L.A.

- Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (U.L.A.) § 3.

ALR.

- One who left demanding state by official permission as a fugitive from justice for purposes of extradition, 67 A.L.R. 1480.

Sufficiency of recitals in rendition warrant in extradition as regards copy of indictment or affidavit, 89 A.L.R. 595.

Sufficiency of statements in demanding papers in extradition proceedings as allegation or proof of presence of accused in demanding state at time of commission of alleged crime or that accused is a fugitive, 135 A.L.R. 973.

Constitutionality, construction, and application of statute authorizing extradition of one who commits an act within the state or a third state resulting in a crime in the demanding state, 151 A.L.R. 239.

Determination, in extradition proceedings, or on habeas corpus in such proceedings, whether a crime is charged, 40 A.L.R.2d 1151.

Necessity and sufficiency of identification of accused as the person charged, to warrant extradition, 93 A.L.R.2d 912.

Necessity that demanding state show probable cause to arrest fugitive in extradition proceedings, 90 A.L.R.3d 1085.