The guilt or innocence of the accused as to the crime of which he is charged may not be inquired into by the governor or in any proceeding after the demand for extradition accompanied by a charge of crime in legal form as above provided shall have been presented to the governor, except as it may be involved in identifying the person held as the person charged with the crime.
History: Laws 1937, ch. 65, § 20; 1941 Comp., § 42-1920; 1953 Comp., § 41-19-20.
ANNOTATIONSDefendant's guilt or innocence reserved for courts of demanding state. — Questions relating to the guilt or innocence of the defendant for the crime charged in the demanding state, logically, are reserved for the courts of the demanding state and may not be inquired into by the courts of the asylum state except for the identity of the person held as being the person charged with the crime. State v. Sandoval, 1980-NMSC-139, 95 N.M. 254, 620 P.2d 1279.
Asylum state may not adjudicate defendant's right to speedy trial. — An asylum state, in extradition proceedings, is without authority to adjudicate the defendant's right to a speedy trial in the demanding state upon charges lodged against him there. State v. Sandoval, 1980-NMSC-139, 95 N.M. 254, 620 P.2d 1279.
Concepts of res judicata, double jeopardy and estoppel do not apply to extradition proceedings and are not within the purview of inquiry in an extradition proceeding. State v. Sandoval, 1980-NMSC-139, 95 N.M. 254, 620 P.2d 1279.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 31A Am. Jur. 2d Extradition §§ 127 to 143.
Necessity and sufficiency of identification of accused as the person charged, to warrant extradition, 93 A.L.R.2d 912.
Necessity that demanding state show probable cause to arrest fugitive in extradition proceedings, 90 A.L.R.3d 1074.
Modern status of rule relating to jurisidictional of state court to try criminal defendant brought within jurisdiction illegally or as result of fraud or mistake, 25 A.L.R.4th 157.
35 C.J.S. Extradition § 29.