decided: April 22, 1970.
COMMONWEALTH EX REL. COADES, APPELLANT,
Appeals from order of Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Dec. T., 1968, Nos. 388 and 873, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. John Coades, Jr. et al. v. John I. Gable, Warden.
W. Donald Sparks, for appellants.
Anna Iwachiw Vadino, Assistant District Attorney, with her Ralph B. D'Iorio, Assistant District Attorney, and Stephen J. McEwen, Jr., District Attorney, for appellee.
Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Justice Pomeroy.
[ 437 Pa. Page 554]
Appellants, John Coades, Jr. and Allen Coades, filed separate petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County pursuant to the provisions of § 10 of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, Act of July 8, 1941, P. L. 288, § 10, 19 P.S. § 191.10 ("the Act") to test the legality of their detention in Pennsylvania and their extradition to the State of Delaware where they had been indicted for second degree murder. A hearing was held after which the court dismissed the petitions and ordered that appellants be delivered for extradition.*fn1 These appeals followed.
We have held that extradition under the Act will be ordered if, "(1) the subject of the extradition is charged with a crime in the demanding state; (2) the subject of extradition is a fugitive from the demanding state; (3) the subject of the extradition was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime; and (4) the requisition papers are in order." Commonwealth ex rel. Raucci v. Price, 409 Pa. 90, 95, 185 A.2d 523 (1962); Commonwealth ex rel. Flood v. Pizzo, 434 Pa. 208, 252 A.2d 656 (1969);
[ 437 Pa. Page 555]
of the alleged crime"; it need only establish that the person before the court is the person indicted for the crime.
The identification requirement of Section 20 of the Act was fully satisfied in this case. At no time did appellants allege that they were not the persons named in the Delaware indictments. Indeed, there was positive evidence that they were the persons named. One of the Delaware police officers, who had been present at the magistrate's preliminary hearing on the arrest of appellants, testified at the hearing below that the magistrate had identified appellants as John and Allen Coades; and the wife of the Delaware victim appeared at the hearing below and identified appellants as having been present at the murder of her husband in Delaware. This testimony was apparently considered credible by the court below, and it not only established that appellants were the persons charged with the crime but also that they had been present in Delaware at the time of the crime.
No challenge has been directed to the propriety of the requisition papers, and they appear to comply with the requirements of the Extradition Act. The other three requirements under the Act were satisfied by the evidence presented below. The court, therefore, did not err in ordering the extradition of appellants.