UNIFORM CRIMINAL EXTRADITION ACT
Act 144 of 1937
780.3a Extradition; persons not present in demanding state at time of commission of crime.
Sec. 3a.
The governor of this state may also surrender, on demand of the executive authority of any other state, any person in this state charged in such other state in the manner provided in section 3 with committing an act in this state, or in a third state, intentionally resulting in a crime in the state whose executive authority is making the demand, and the provisions of this act not otherwise inconsistent shall apply to such cases, even though the accused was not in that state at the time of the commission of the crime, and has not fled therefrom, and the requirements contained in subdivisions (d) and (e) of section 3 of this act shall not apply to such cases.
History: Add. 1939, Act 81, Eff. Sept. 29, 1939 ;-- Am. 1947, Act 143, Imd. Eff. May 29, 1947 ;-- CL 1948, 780.3a
Notes of Decisions
Deur v. Newaygo Sheriff, 362 N.W.2d 698 (Mich. 1985).
· cites it 14× “This case concerns the construction of the non-fugitive extradition statute, being MCL 780.3a; MSA 28.1285(3-1/2) of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act.”
People v. Blume, 505 N.W.2d 843 (Mich. 1993).
· cites it 4× “1285(3-1/2), which provides: The governor of this state may also surrender, on demand of the executive authority of any other state, any person in this state charged in such other state in the manner provided in section 3 with committing an act in this state, or in a third…”
Deur v. Newaygo Cnty. Sheriff, 336 N.W.2d 852 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
“The extradition falls within the confines of MCL 780.3a; MSA 28.1285(3-1/2), § 3a of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, which *644 deals with the extradition of non-fugitives.”
Eroh v. Manistee Cnty. Sheriff, 272 N.W.2d 720 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
“This appeal involves two pertinent inquiries: (1) the constitutionality of § 3a the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, MCL 780.3a; MSA 28.1285(3-1/2), dealing with the extradition of nonfugitives; and if the provision is constitutionally valid, then, (2) the scope of inquiry on…”
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.