Smith v. Bell

272 S.E.2d 309, 246 Ga. 577, 1980 Ga. LEXIS 1205
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided October 22, 1980·No. 36775·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Undercofler, Chief Justice.

The burden of proof in an extradition case is on the person resisting extradition once the State has made a prima facie case that the extradition is proper. Hutson v. Stoner, 244 Ga. 52 (257 SE2d 538) (1979). The evidence here supports the habeas court’s ruling that the extradition papers are in order and that the petitioner is the person named in the proceedings. The summary nature of extradition does not deny petitioner due process. McCullough v. Stynchcombe, 243 Ga. 24 (252 SE2d 453) (1979).

Judgment affirmed,

All the Justices concur. Charles Crawford, District Attorney, for appellee.

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

Smith v. Bell, 272 S.E.2d 309, 246 Ga. 577, 1980 Ga. LEXIS 1205 (Ga. 1980).

272 S.E.2d 309 (Smith v. Bell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Covert v. Lee
349 S.E.2d 450 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1986)