Burton v. Stynchcombe

207 S.E.2d 493, 232 Ga. 510, 1974 Ga. LEXIS 991
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 9, 1974
Docket28978
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 207 S.E.2d 493 (Burton v. Stynchcombe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Burton v. Stynchcombe, 207 S.E.2d 493, 232 Ga. 510, 1974 Ga. LEXIS 991 (Ga. 1974).

Opinion

Undercofler, Justice.

The Governor of Michigan sought the extradition of James William Burton for trial in that state for the offenses of fraudulent detention or use by a subcontractor of building contract funds and fraud by false pretenses. Burton filed a writ of habeas corpus in the Fulton County Superior Court and contended that the extradition proceeding was an endeavor to use the criminal process for the collection of civil debts. The trial court found that there was no merit in the habeas corpus application. The appeal is from that judgment. Held:

"The courts of the asylum state can not, upon a writ of habeas corpus, inquire into the guilt or innocence of the accused. No such jurisdiction is given them by law; and it would be a manifestly unwise provision if authority to investigate such a question were conferred on a tribunal that had no power to compel the attendance of witnesses who resided in another state, and whose testimony would be necessary to throw light on the issue. Upon the hearing of the present case, petitioner introduced evidence for the purpose of showing that the prosecution was not in good faith, but was instituted for the purpose of collecting a debt. This evidence could only be insisted on as a circumstance throwing light upon the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. We think, therefore, it was clearly inadmissible, and that the judge erred in undertaking to inquire into the motive and purpose of this prosecution.” Barranger v. Baum, 103 Ga. 465, 473 (30 SE 524).

It follows that the trial court properly denied the application for the writ of habeas corpus.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, H. Allen Moye, for appellees.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gilstrap v. Wilder
213 S.E.2d 895 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
207 S.E.2d 493, 232 Ga. 510, 1974 Ga. LEXIS 991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burton-v-stynchcombe-ga-1974.