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 19-4506, Idaho Code, 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. Such demand must be accompanied by a copy of an indictment or by information supported by affidavit of probable cause, judicial finding of probable cause, or plea of guilty, as reflected in any document from the court in the demanding state, or by affidavit made before a judge or magistrate, together with a copy of any warrant which was issued thereupon, or by a copy of a judgment of conviction or sentence imposed in execution thereof, together with a statement by the executive authority of the demanding state that the person claimed has fled the state after being charged with a crime, escaped from confinement, or has broken the terms of his bail, probation or parole. The indictment, information, or affidavit made before the judge or magistrate must substantially charge the person demanded with having committed a crime under the law of that state, and the copy of the indictment, information, affidavit, or judgment of conviction or sentence must be authenticated by the executive authority making the demand.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 1955–1982 · leading case:
Jacobsen v. State, 577 P.2d 24 (Idaho 1978).
Jacobsen v. State, 577 P.2d 24 (Idaho 1978).
· cites it 8× “Appellant next contends that the affidavit attached to the Wyoming extradition documents is inadequate in that it does not charge him with the commission of every element essential to the crime.”
Kerr v. Watson, 649 P.2d 1234 (Idaho Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 4× “I.C. § 19-4503. In this case the district judge—faced with allegations that appellant removed the child from Oregon, avoided contact with the custodial parent, quit his job in Oregon without notice the day he was to return the child, joined the child in another state, and was…”
Hanson v. Watson, 651 P.2d 543 (Idaho Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 5× “” In Williams the Idaho Supreme Court upheld extradition to Oregon, over Williams’ argument that I.C. § 19-4503 required a copy of the warrant from the demanding state to accompany the copy of the indictment.”
Application of Williams, 279 P.2d 882 (Idaho 1955).
· cites it 6× “Appellants contend that under the provisions of Section 19-4503, I.C., the failure of the extradition papers to contain copies of *176 warrants of arrest renders them fatally defective.”
Proctor v. Skinner, 659 P.2d 779 (Idaho Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “” I.C. § 19-4503. In this appeal we are asked to interpret the phrase, “substantially charge.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.