State v. Murray

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

State v. Murray

178 A.2d 507, 104 N.H. 38, 1962 N.H. LEXIS 12

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedMarch 1, 1962

Docket5026

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 178 A.2d 507 (State v. Murray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Murray, 178 A.2d 507, 104 N.H. 38, 1962 N.H. LEXIS 12 (N.H. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Kenison, C. J.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Law which has been adopted in this state the defendant was entitled to a hearing (RSA 612:15) and the opportunity to be released on bail (RSA 612:16) both of which have been accorded the defendant. Ex parte Thaw, 209 Fed. 954 (D. N. H. 1913). However the defendant contends that the continuance of the hearing to March 3, 1962 is illegal and “an unlawful deprivation of due process.” While there is a dearth of authority on the power of the court in an extradition hearing to grant or deny a continuance or adjournment, it has been generally assumed in the cases that such power existed and was to be upheld unless there appeared an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth ex rel Mills v. Baldi, 166 Pa. Super. 321. See Handbook on Interstate Crime Control, pp. 32-37 (Council of State Governments, Rev. ed. 1955). We find no evidence in the record of the hearing before the Keene munipipal court which indicates that there was an abuse of discretion by that court. Riendeau v. Milford Municipal Court, 104 N. H. 33. Furthermore *40 the continuance was consistent with the Uniform Act and the provisions of RSA 612:15, 17.

Whether the defendant is a fugitive from justice remains to be decided by the municipal court of Keene at the hearing to be held on March 3, 1962. Hinz v. Perkins, 97 N. H. 114; Pearson v. Campbell, 97 N. H. 444. Any decision then made is subject to the defendant’s right to file a writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court pursuant to RSA 612:10. Lyon v. Harkness, 151 F. 2d 731 (1st Cir. 1945); LaBelle v. Hancock, 99 N. H. 254; Note, Habeas Corpus in Interstate Rendition, 47 Col. L. Rev. 470 (1947).

The statutory authority (RSA 490:4) given the Supreme Court to exercise “general superintendence” of other courts is broad and comprehensive (State v. Knowlton, 102 N. H. 221; State ex rel Regan v. Superior Court, 102 N. H. 224) but we find no occasion to use it in this proceeding at this time. Riendeau v. Milford Municipal Court, 104 N. H. 33. See Nelson v. Morse, 91 N. H. 177; Springer v. Hungerford, 100 N. H. 503; Note, Constitutional Aspects of State Extradition Legislation, 28 Ind. L. J. 662 (1953).

Petition dismissed.

All concurred.

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

Kenison, C. J.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Law which has been adopted in this state the defendant was entitled to a hearing (RSA 612:15) and the opportunity to be released on bail (RSA 612:16) both of which have been accorded the defendant. Ex parte Thaw, 209 Fed. 954 (D. N. H. 1913). However the defendant contends that the continuance of the hearing to March 3, 1962 is illegal and “an unlawful deprivation of due process.” While there is a dearth of authority on the power of the court in an extradition hearing to grant or deny a continuance or adjournment, it has been generally assumed in the cases that such power existed and was to be upheld unless there appeared an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth ex rel Mills v. Baldi, 166 Pa. Super. 321. See Handbook on Interstate Crime Control, pp. 32-37 (Council of State Governments, Rev. ed. 1955). We find no evidence in the record of the hearing before the Keene munipipal court which indicates that there was an abuse of discretion by that court. Riendeau v. Milford Municipal Court, 104 N. H. 33. Furthermore *40 the continuance was consistent with the Uniform Act and the provisions of RSA 612:15, 17.

Whether the defendant is a fugitive from justice remains to be decided by the municipal court of Keene at the hearing to be held on March 3, 1962. Hinz v. Perkins, 97 N. H. 114; Pearson v. Campbell, 97 N. H. 444. Any decision then made is subject to the defendant’s right to file a writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court pursuant to RSA 612:10. Lyon v. Harkness, 151 F. 2d 731 (1st Cir. 1945); LaBelle v. Hancock, 99 N. H. 254; Note, Habeas Corpus in Interstate Rendition, 47 Col. L. Rev. 470 (1947).

The statutory authority (RSA 490:4) given the Supreme Court to exercise “general superintendence” of other courts is broad and comprehensive (State v. Knowlton, 102 N. H. 221; State ex rel Regan v. Superior Court, 102 N. H. 224) but we find no occasion to use it in this proceeding at this time. Riendeau v. Milford Municipal Court, 104 N. H. 33. See Nelson v. Morse, 91 N. H. 177; Springer v. Hungerford, 100 N. H. 503; Note, Constitutional Aspects of State Extradition Legislation, 28 Ind. L. J. 662 (1953).

Petition dismissed.

All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.2d 507, 104 N.H. 38, 1962 N.H. LEXIS 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-murray-nh-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack