Commonwealth ex rel. Ebbole v. Robinson

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth ex rel. Ebbole v. Robinson

299 A.2d 47, 223 Pa. Super. 119, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1063

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 11, 1972

DocketAppeal, No. 420

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 299 A.2d 47 (Commonwealth ex rel. Ebbole v. Robinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth ex rel. Ebbole v. Robinson, 299 A.2d 47, 223 Pa. Super. 119, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1063 (Pa. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Packel, J.,

An extradition demand by the Governor of California was recognized by the Governor of this Commonwealth, and thereafter the court below ordered the extradition. The appellant contends that the California demand was violative of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act¹ because the California affidavit of arrest did not demonstrate probable cause. The affidavit specifically set forth that the appellant committed rape and perversion upon a named victim on a specified date.

Section 3 of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act provides that the demand for extradition, when based on a warrant for arrest, be accompanied by “a copy of an affidavit made before a magistrate there, together [121]*121with a copy of any warrant which was issued thereupon . . .” and that the “affidavit made before the magistrate must substantially charge the person demanded with having committed a crime under the law of that state . . .” Thus, there is no express statutory requirement for the affidavit to state the source or the grounds for the belief that the crime was committed. Even if we were to imply such a provision, the court below was clearly warranted in ordering the extradition because there was present in the court not only the affiant, an assistant district attorney, but also the victim herself who identified the appellant.

Order affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Packel, J.,

An extradition demand by the Governor of California was recognized by the Governor of this Commonwealth, and thereafter the court below ordered the extradition. The appellant contends that the California demand was violative of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act¹ because the California affidavit of arrest did not demonstrate probable cause. The affidavit specifically set forth that the appellant committed rape and perversion upon a named victim on a specified date.

Section 3 of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act provides that the demand for extradition, when based on a warrant for arrest, be accompanied by “a copy of an affidavit made before a magistrate there, together [121]*121with a copy of any warrant which was issued thereupon . . .” and that the “affidavit made before the magistrate must substantially charge the person demanded with having committed a crime under the law of that state . . .” Thus, there is no express statutory requirement for the affidavit to state the source or the grounds for the belief that the crime was committed. Even if we were to imply such a provision, the court below was clearly warranted in ordering the extradition because there was present in the court not only the affiant, an assistant district attorney, but also the victim herself who identified the appellant.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 A.2d 47, 223 Pa. Super. 119, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-ex-rel-ebbole-v-robinson-pasuperct-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack