FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE. One who, having committed a crime, flees from the ju risdiction within which it was committed, to escape punishment.
In the absence of direct evidence on the question of flight, if it appear from the in dictment or affidavit produced that the crime charged is atrocious in its nature, was recent ly committed, and the prosecution promptly instituted, the unexplained presence of the accused in. another state immediately after the commission of the crime ought perhaps to be regarded as prima facie evidence of flight, sufficient, at least, to warrant an order of arrest. The order of surrender is not re quired, by the act of congress, to be made at the same time with the order of arrest, and time, therefore, can be taken, in doubtful cases, after the accused is arrested and se cured, to hear proofs to establish or rebut such prima facie evidence; 6 Am. Jur.. 226; 7 Bost. Law Rep. 386.
One convicted of a crime, who when called for sentence is found in another state, is a fugitive from justice ; Hughes v. Pflanz, 138 Fed. 980, 71 C. C. A. 234.
The accused person may be arrested to await a demand; Ex parte Cubreth, 49 Cal. 436; but he cannot be surrendered before a formal demand is made; Botts v. Williams, 17 B. Monr. (Ky.) 687. But if he be so
surrendered and returned to the state from which the requisition came, this is not a ground of discharge then ; In re Dow, 18 Pa. 39.
The surrender of the accused must be made to an agent of the executive authority of the demanding state, duly appointed to receive the fugitive.
The proceedings of the executive authori ties are subject to be' reviewed on habeas corpus by the judicial power, and if found void the prisoner may be discharged ; Ex par te Smith, 3 McLean 121, Fed. CaS.- No. 12, 968 ; In re Fetter, 23 N. J. L. 311, 57 Am. Dec. 382 ; Ex parte Thornton, 9 Tex. 635; Ex parte White, 49 Cal. 434; Kingsbury's Case, 106 Mass. 223; People v. Brady, 56 N. Y. 182; In re Cook, 49 Fed. 833. But the courts have no jurisdiction to compel the executive to comply with a requisition; Ken tucky v. Dennison, 24 How. (U. S.) 66, 16 L. Ed. 717; Ex parte Manchester, 5 Cal. 237. Nor have the federal courts such jurisdic tion; Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. (U. S.) 66, 16 L. Ed. 717. Nor will the court on habeas corpus try the validity of the indict ment under which he is charged ; Ex parte Pearce, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 301, 23 S. W. 15.
See EXTRADITION.