People ex rel. Coine v. Reilly

228 A.D. 427, 240 N.Y.S. 27, 1930 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12188
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 14, 1930
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 228 A.D. 427 (People ex rel. Coine v. Reilly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People ex rel. Coine v. Reilly, 228 A.D. 427, 240 N.Y.S. 27, 1930 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12188 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The relator has been indicted in Cook county, 111., charged with the crime of making a false return of an election in violation of section 5 of article VI of chapter 46 of the Illinois Revised Statutes.

It also appears that in or about the month of October, 1927, the relator was convicted in the County Court of Cook county, 111., of the offense of contempt of court under another provision of the same statute and sentenced to the county jail for one year. This conviction was affirmed in the appellate courts of Illinois. Subsequently she was indicted for the crime of making a false return of an election, and it is under this indictment that her extradition is sought, it being claimed that she is a fugitive from justice in the State of New York.

The relator contends that it appears conclusively that she has already been convicted and sentenced for the very same acts constituting the crime for which she has been indicted, and that her prosecution under this indictment would be subjecting her to double jeopardy, and consequently that, in the present habeas [428]*428corpus proceeding and for the purpose of preventing extradition, the appellant is entitled to show that she has already been convicted for the acts constituting the crime charged in the indictment, and, because of that fact, the Constitution bars further prosecution and that the writ should be sustained and the relator discharged.

We are of the opinion that the issue' of former jeopardy cannot be raised in this proceeding in this State. It is a matter of defense before the court wherein the indictment is pending. (Matter of Bloch, 87 Fed. 981; Munsey v. Clough, 196 U. S. 364.)

The order dismissing the writ of habeas corpus should be affirmed and the relator remanded to the custody of the agent of the State of Illinois pursuant to the warrant of the Governor of the State of New York.

Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Carswell, JJ., concur.

Order dismissing writ of habeas corpus affirmed and relator remanded to the custody of the agent of the State of Illinois pursuant to the warrant of the Governor of the State of New York.

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

Related

Lucas v. Sheriff
466 P.2d 659 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1970)
People ex rel. Arnold v. Hoy
32 Misc. 2d 824 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)
People ex rel. Arnold v. Allen
30 Misc. 2d 1031 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
228 A.D. 427, 240 N.Y.S. 27, 1930 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-coine-v-reilly-nyappdiv-1930.