Ray v. Warden, Baltimore City Jail

Thompson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The only substantial question presented in these two appeals is the facial validity of warrants of rendition, issued by the Governor of Maryland, under U. S. Const. Art. 4, § 2, as implemented by 18 U.S.C. § 3182 and by Md. Code, Article 41, §§ 16 to 43. The warrant as to Richard H. Huntley recited that it was issued on demand from the Governor of the State of Pennsylvania which demand was accompanied by a copy of the conviction charging him as a fugitive for violation of parole and that the accompanying papers were certified as authentic by the Governor of the State of Pennsylvania.

The warrant as to Larry Ray was issued at the request of the Governor of the State of North Carolina and contained similar recitals. When Ray and Huntley were brought before the trial court in accordance with Md. Code, Article 41, § 25, each demanded an opportunity to apply for a Writ of Habeas Corpus which was subsequently issued. At the hearings thereon, the State produced the warrants of rendition and ⁶³ the requests from the respective Governors of the demanding states, but did not produce the documents required by law to accompany the requests from the demanding states. The appellants contend the burden of proof is upon the state to show a compliance with Md. Code, Article 41, § 18, which requires that the demand for extradition be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, conviction, etc. and that the copies of the required papers be authenticated by the Governor of the demanding state.

The appellee on the other hand, contends that the production of the warrant issued by the Governor of Maryland containing proper recitals is itself sufficient to authorize extradition in the absence of contrary proof by the applicant for the Writ of Habeas Corpus. We agree with the appellee. To support this argument, the appellants cite Commonwealth ex rel. Girnus v. Haas, 439 Pa. 39 , 266 A. 2d 94 , Audler v. Kriss, 197 Md. 362 , 79 A. 2d 391 and Campbell v. State, 10 Md. App. 406 , 271 A. 2d 190 .

Two of these cases support the proposition that the accompanying papers will be reviewed if they are presented to the court but none cover the question as to who has the duty to present the papers. The general rule is that the issuance of the Governor’s warrant, valid on its face, creates the presumption that documents accompanying the demand were in proper order. Cases so holding are cited in the note, 1 It appears that this particular point has not heretofore been presented to the Courts of Maryland. The spirit of our decision however, appears to be in accor ⁶⁴ dance with Solomon v. Warden, 256 Md. 297 , 260 A. 2d 68