No. 01-2155Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court. SUFFOLK, SS
DATED: August 7, 2001
FINDINGS AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR RELEASE FROM CONFINEMENT BY SHERIFF UPON RENDITION WARRANT
FABRICANT, J.
The authority for interstate extradition under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (“UCEA”), as adopted by Massachusetts and codified as G.L.c. 276, §§ 11-20R, is found in art IV, § 2, cl. 2 of the United States Constitution. In re Hinnant, 424 Mass. 900, 903-904 (1997), citing Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 287 (1978). The scope of judicial review of a petition for habeas corpus challenging the legality of an individual’s confinement under the UCEA is clearly limited to the following: 1) whether the extradition documents on their face are in order; 2) whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state; 3) whether the petition is the person named in the request for extradition; and 4) whether the petitioner is a fugitive. Inre Hinnant, supra at 905, citing Doran, supra.
Interstate extradition is a “summary executive procedure whose effect is essentially to enlarge the territorial area for lawful arrest.”Maldonado, Petitioner, 364 Mass. 359, 362 (1973). The reviewing court “does not try the whole question anew according to strict rules of evidence and all other procedural limitations.” Germain, Petitioner, 258 Mass. 289, 295 (1927).
A warrant issued under the UCEA “is prima facie evidence, `at least, that all necessary legal prerequisites have been complied with, and, if the previous proceedings appear to be regular, is conclusive evidence of the right to remove the prisoner to the state from which he fled.'” Inre Baker, 310 Mass. 724, 728 (1942) (citations omitted). “A petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus who is held as a fugitive from justice has the burden of making it clearly and satisfactorily to appear that he is not a fugitive from justice within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the United States.” In re Baker, supra at 730. Regarding the issue of identity, the burden shifts to the Commonwealth to show that the petitioner was the person named or described in the rendition warrant. AJuvenile, petitioner, 396 Mass. 116, 121 (1985), citing Baker, supra
at 731. Where the extradition papers contain the addition of aliases, the effect is to “deprive the Commonwealth of the benefit of whatever inferences could [be] drawn from an identity of names in the documents.”In re Moore, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 399, 403 (1974), citing Baker, supra
at 731. In this case, the rendition papers on their face indisputably meet the formal requirements of the statute, and establish that the person named in the papers stands charged with the crime of murder in the North Carolina. The crime is one that, by its nature indicates the presence within that state of the person charged, so as to indicate that that person, if no longer in that state, is a fugitive. Thus, the only question remaining for determination is whether the petitioner before this Court is the person named in the rendition papers.
The indictment returned by the grand jury for Guilford County, North Carolina, on January 17, 2001, names Torrie McKinley Davis. Appended to the Governor’s Warrant is what appears to be an arrest record from the Kinston, North Carolina, Police Department, bearing identifying number 1114, reflecting the arrest on April 23, 1993, of a person by the name of Torri McKinley Davis, described as a black male, with brown eyes, height of 5′, 10″, weight of 160 pounds, and a scar at the right corner of his eye brow. This record reflects that Torri McKinley Davis was born in Lenoir County, North Carolina, on March 20, 1977, and at the time of the arrest had an address of 604 E. Highland Avenue, Kinston. Under “M.O. or other info,” the document provides the number “242-25-7905.” The arrest record bears fingerprints of Torri McKinley Davis, including all ten fingers. Also appended to the Governor’s Warrant are two other documents bearing the name of Torri McKinley Davis. One of these is captioned “PCIBASE PRISONER CONTROL RECORD JCA: 98 — 026626,” and bears a photograph of the person identified. This document spells the name as “Torri Mickenly Davis,” but gives the same date and place of birth, height, and weight, as the Kinston Police Department record, and provides a social security number matching the number listed on that record as “M.O. or other info.” The home address noted record is 602E Highland Avenue, Kinston, North Carolina. The document also notes a scar on the left arm. The other document attached appears to a wanted poster, indicating that “Tori McKinley Davis,” described as “black male, DOB 3-20-77, 5’8″, 125 lbs.,” is wanted for murder. The poster bears a photograph, consistent with but not the same as the one on the PCI record; this photograph shows Kinston Police Department identifying number 1114, with additional numbers that appear to be a date of August 22, in a year that is illegible.
Although discrepancies and minor inconsistencies do appear with respect to spelling of the name, street address, and weight, under the relatively low standard applicable to this proceeding, these papers suffice to show that the person who is under indictment for murder in North Carolina is the same person who is the subject of the 1993 Kinston, North Carolina arrest record. These papers provide no information, however, to indicate that the petitioner before the Court is that person.[1]
To fill that gap, the Commonwealth has provided the affidavit of Sharon Wong, with appended exhibits.
_________________________________________ Judth Fabricant Justice of the Superior Court
DATED: August 7, 2001