Opinion
Submitted May 21, 1956.
June 25, 1956.
Criminal law — Extradition — Willful neglect of children — Habeas corpus — Uniform Criminal Extradition Act — Uniform Enforcement of Support Law — Uniform Judicial Notice of Foreign Law Act.
1. In this habeas corpus proceeding, contesting the validity of an extradition warrant issued by the Governor of New Jersey, ordering relator's surrender to New Jersey to answer a criminal charge of willful neglect of relator's minor children, in which it appeared that relator had never lived in New Jersey but had been present in New Jersey on numerous occasions and that his wife and children were living in New Jersey, it was Held that (1) the applicable statute was the Uniform Enforcement of Support Law of May 10, 1951, P. L. 279, § 5, rather than the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act of July 8, 1941, P. L. 288, § 3; (2) the court could take judicial notice of the pertinent New Jersey statute; (3) the crime for which relator had been indicted in New Jersey was also a misdemeanor in Pennsylvania; (4) the crime of willful neglect could be committed in New Jersey if the children were there and had been willfully neglected there; (5) relator's guilt or innocence could not be determined in the extradition proceedings; (6) relator was extraditable even though he had not fled from New Jersey; (7) the extradition papers were in proper form; and (8) the petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed.
2. Under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act of July 8, 1941, P. L. 288, § 3, the extent of the proof required to sustain a state's requisition of another state for the extradition therefrom of a fugitive from justice is that the subject of the extradition is charged with a crime in the demanding state, that he was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime charged, that he is a fugitive from the demanding state and that the requisition papers are in order.
3. The Uniform Enforcement of Support Law of 1951, P. L. 279, § 5, relating to criminal non-support makes two important departures from the Uniform Criminal Extradition Law, in that it is not necessary under the Act of 1951 to show (a) that the accused was in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime, or (b) that he has fled therefrom; however, it is necessary under the Act of 1951 to show the commission of the crime of non-support in the demanding state.
4. A court can take judicial notice of the statutes enacted in another state which are pertinent to the disposition of the case before the court: Uniform Judicial Notice of Foreign Law Act of May 4, 1939, P. L. 42.
Before STERN, C. J., JONES, BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO and ARNOLD, JJ.
Appeal, No. 20, May T., 1956, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, March T., 1955, No. 615, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Etter N. Houser v. John C. Seip, Warden, Dauphin County Prison. Order affirmed.
Same case in court below: 5 Pa. D. C.2d 577.
Habeas corpus proceeding.
Order entered dismissing petition for writ, opinion by NEELY, J. Relator appealed.
Etter N. Houser, appellant, in propria persona.
Martin H. Lock, Assistant District Attorney and Huette F. Dowling, District Attorney, for appellee.
The Order of the Court below is affirmed on the Opinion of Judge NEELY.