People ex rel. Hinton v. Von Holden, 41 N.Y.2d 342 (1977)

When the accused was not in the demanding state at the time of the alleged crime, extradition requires a prima facie showing that the accused’s actions in the asylum state would constitute a crime in the asylum state if the consequences had occurred there.

Summary

This case concerns the extradition of Guy Hinton from New York to California for felony nonsupport of his children. Hinton had left California in 1962, and in 1972, California sought his extradition. The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the requirements of CPL 570.16 were met, which governs extradition when the accused was not in the demanding state at the time of the alleged crime. The court held that while the extradition papers alleged an intentional act in New York resulting in a crime in California, they failed to establish prima facie that Hinton had the ability to support his children, a necessary element of the New York nonsupport statute. Therefore, the extradition warrant was vacated.

Facts

In 1962, Guy Hinton left his wife and children in California. His wife later applied for public assistance in California, claiming nonsupport from Hinton. A felony complaint was filed in California in October 1972, alleging that Hinton willfully failed to support his minor children. Hinton was arrested in New York in November 1972, where he resided, pending extradition proceedings. The California Governor requested Hinton’s return, stating that Hinton committed acts outside California intentionally resulting in the crime of nonsupport within California. The New York Governor then issued a warrant for Hinton’s arrest and surrender.

Procedural History

Hinton sought to vacate the Governor’s warrant, arguing that the supporting documents did not meet the requirements of CPL 570.16. The Suffolk County Supreme Court granted the motion, treating it as an application for habeas corpus. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the affidavits submitted with the California complaint contained sufficient information to satisfy CPL 570.08 and 570.16. Hinton then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the requirements of CPL 570.16 have been met, specifically:

1. Whether the California felony complaint, even with supporting affidavits, establishes that any acts committed by Hinton would constitute a crime in New York?
2. Whether the felony complaint is defective for failing to allege that Hinton committed an act in New York that intentionally resulted in the commission of a crime in California?

Holding

1. No, because the extradition papers failed to establish prima facie that Hinton had the ability to support his children, an essential element of the New York nonsupport statute.
2. No, the Governor’s demand and accompanying affidavits showing that the defendant committed an act in New York intentionally resulting in a crime in the demanding State satisfies this requirement of CPL 570.16.

Court’s Reasoning

The court distinguished between extradition of fugitives from justice and extradition of individuals not physically present in the demanding state during the alleged crime. The latter depends on comity between states, as the U.S. Constitution only mandates the extradition of actual fugitives. New York’s adoption of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act allows for extradition in cases where the accused was not in the demanding state, but it includes safeguards to prevent abuse. The court noted that CPL 570.16 requires that the acts for which extradition is sought would be punishable by New York law if the consequences had occurred in New York.

While the California complaint charged Hinton with willfully omitting to furnish support, the court found a critical deficiency in the extradition papers. The court explained, “On this record there is nothing of an evidentiary nature showing that the defendant had the ability to furnish support out of his financial resources or by means of his earning capacity.” The court explicitly rejected the argument that a prior Family Court order established this ability because that order did not contain any findings on Hinton’s resources or earning capacity. Because a prima facie showing of ability to pay was required, the extradition was improper. Thus, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and reinstated the Supreme Court’s judgment vacating the Governor’s warrant.