State v. Fox

3 Citing cases

  1. Herman v. Brewer

    193 N.W.2d 540 (Iowa 1972)   Cited 19 times
    In Herman we held that an Iowa sentence, entered and served subsequently to an unrelated Kansas sentence, would not be construed to run concurrently with the Kansas sentence. Herman is not in point.

    The general rule is that a state's right to try — and to imprison — a defendant for a crime is not defeated by the manner in which he comes within its jurisdiction. We recently again approved this principle in Gardels v. Brewer, Warden, 190 N.W.2d 803, 806 (Iowa 1971) See also 21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law, section 381, page 401; Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 72 S.Ct. 509, 96 L.Ed. 541, 545 (1952); Goodman v. Commonwealth, Ky. (1968), 423 S.W.2d 905, 907; State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 230, 152 N.W.2d 768, 773, 774 (1967); Davis v. Rhay, 68 Wn.2d 496, 413 P.2d 654, 656, 657 (1966); State v. Green, 2 N.C. App. 391, 163 S.E.2d 14, 16 (1968); State v. Wharton, 194 Kan. 694, 401 P.2d 906, 907 (1965); State v. Fox, 250 Or. 83, 439 P.2d 1009, 1010 (1968); Brooks v. Boles, 151 W. Va. 576, 153 S.E.2d 526, 529 (1967); Hobson v. Crouse, 10 Cir., 332 F.2d 561, 562 (1964); Yurk v. Brunk, 202 Kan. 755, 451 P.2d 230, 231 (1969); Annotation 165 A.L.R. 947, 948, 962. IV.

  2. State v. Weller

    250 P.3d 979 (Or. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 1 times

    Oregon courts also applied the Ker rule prior to Aydiner. See, e.g., State v. Fox, 250 Or 83, 85, 439 P2d 1009, cert den, 393 US 891 (1968) (citing Ker and Frisbie in rejecting the defendant's Oregon constitutional claims and holding that "the jurisdiction of the trial court was not impaired by any defect in the proceedings by which defendant was brought into Oregon for trial"); State v. Wertheimer, 6 Or App 507, 509, 488 P2d 1199 (1971) (rejecting, under Fox and Frisbie, the defendant's "arguments with reference to his motion on jurisdiction and motion to dismiss the indictment * * * based upon his claim that he was illegally extradited or taken from Minnesota to Oregon for this trial"). The defendant moved to dismiss the state's case, arguing that the state's use of "trickery and deceit" violated the extradition treaty between Turkey and the United States, as well as his due process rights.

  3. State v. Wertheimer

    488 P.2d 1199 (Or. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 2 times

    Defendant's arguments with reference to his motion on jurisdiction and motion to dismiss the indictment (A and B above), are based upon his claim that he was illegally extradited or taken from Minnesota to Oregon for this trial. In State v. Fox, 250 Or. 83, 439 P.2d 1009, cert denied 393 U.S. 891, 89 S Ct 213, 21 L Ed 2d 171 (1968), the Oregon Supreme Court, citing many authorities, including Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 72 S Ct 509, 96 L Ed 541 (1951), held that the jurisdiction of the trial court is not impaired by any defect in the proceeding by which the defendant was brought into Oregon for trial. C. Two police officers, one from Montana and one from Minnesota, testified regarding inculpatory statements made by the defendant to them.