Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH EX REL. EBBOLE v. ROBINSON (12/11/72)

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: December 11, 1972.

COMMONWEALTH EX REL. EBBOLE, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBINSON

Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Allegheny County, June T., 1972, No. 1100, in re Commonwealth ex rel. Harold Anthony Ebbole v. William B. Robinson.

COUNSEL

John J. Petrush, for appellant.

Robert L. Eberhardt, Assistant District Attorney, with him Carol Mary Los, Assistant District Attorney, and Robert W. Duggan, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Wright, P. J., Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, and Packel, JJ. (Spaulding and Cercone, JJ., absent). Opinion by Packel, J.

Author: PACKEL

[ 223 Pa. Super. Page 120]

An extradition demand by the Governor of California was recognized by the Governor of this Commonwealth, and thereafter the court below ordered the extradition. The appellant contends that the California demand was violative of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act*fn1 because the California affidavit of arrest did not demonstrate probable cause. The affidavit specifically set forth that the appellant committed rape and perversion upon a named victim on a specified date.

Section 3 of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act provides that the demand for extradition, when based on a warrant for arrest, be accompanied by "a copy of an affidavit made before a magistrate there, together

[ 223 Pa. Super. Page 121]

    with a copy of any warrant which was issued thereupon . . ." and that the "affidavit made before the magistrate must substantially charge the person demanded with having committed a crime under the law of that state . . ." Thus, there is no express statutory requirement for the affidavit to state the source or the grounds for the belief that the crime was committed. Even if we were to imply such a provision, the court below was clearly warranted in ordering the extradition because there was present in the court not only the affiant, an assistant district attorney, but also the victim herself who identified the appellant.

Order affirmed.

Disposition

Order affirmed.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.