The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition. A critical aspect is the documentation required for a valid rendition request. Under RSA 612:5, the demanding state must provide an indictment, an information supported by a sworn affidavit, or a judgment of conviction or a sentence. The governor of the demanding state must also issue a formal written demand, accompanied by a copy of the charging document and any supporting affidavits. Furthermore, the demanding state’s governor must certify that the person has fled from justice and is found in the asylum state. New Hampshire law, specifically RSA 612:6, requires the asylum state’s governor to review this documentation to determine if it substantially charges an offense under the laws of the demanding state and if the person sought is the person named in the request. The governor then issues a warrant for the arrest of the person. The absence of a sworn affidavit supporting an information, or a conviction record where a sentence has been imposed, would render the demand procedurally deficient under the UCEA as adopted in New Hampshire, thus preventing extradition on those grounds.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire, governs the process of returning fugitives from justice to demanding states. A critical aspect of this process involves the issuance of a Governor’s Warrant. In New Hampshire, as per RSA 612:15, the Governor may, upon demand of the executive authority of any other state, issue a warrant for the arrest of any person charged in that state with committing a crime. The law requires that this demand be accompanied by a copy of an indictment found, an information, or a complaint, made before a judge or magistrate of the demanding state, charging the accused with a crime. This documentation must be substantially charged in accordance with the law of the demanding state. Furthermore, RSA 612:16 mandates that the indictment, information, or complaint must be accompanied by an affidavit made before a judge or magistrate there, and by a copy of any warrant which was issued thereupon. The Governor’s Warrant itself serves as the formal authorization for the arrest and detention of the accused, and it must be presented to the arresting officer. The process is designed to ensure that the accused is formally charged with a crime in the demanding state and that the request for extradition is properly substantiated.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire, outlines the process for interstate rendition of fugitives. A critical aspect is the governor’s authority to issue a rendition warrant. This warrant must be supported by specific documentation. According to RSA 612:5, the demanding state’s governor must furnish an application for extradition. This application must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by an affidavit, or by a complaint made before a magistrate, charging the accused with having committed a crime in the demanding state. Crucially, this charging document must be accompanied by “a copy of any warrant which was issued thereon.” Therefore, the warrant issued by the demanding state’s magistrate is a prerequisite for the New Hampshire governor to issue their rendition warrant. Without this, the application is incomplete and does not meet the statutory requirements for extradition.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire, governs the process of interstate rendition. A crucial aspect is the requirement for a formal demand from the demanding state. This demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, or accusation made against the fugitive, certified as authentic by the executive authority of the demanding state. Furthermore, the demanding state must also provide a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, if the fugitive has been convicted and has escaped or fled from justice after sentence. RSA 612:5 outlines these requirements for the demanding state’s application. The question presents a scenario where the Governor of Massachusetts seeks the extradition of a person from New Hampshire for a crime committed in Massachusetts. The supporting documentation includes a certified copy of the indictment and a sworn affidavit detailing the fugitive’s presence in Massachusetts at the time of the offense. However, it omits a certified copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence. Since the individual is being sought for a crime allegedly committed, and not for escape after conviction, the absence of a judgment of conviction or sentence does not invalidate the demand. The indictment and affidavit are sufficient to establish probable cause for the alleged offense. Therefore, the Governor of New Hampshire can proceed with the extradition based on the provided documentation, as it meets the statutory requirements for a demand based on an unconvicted fugitive.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire as RSA 612, governs the process of interstate rendition. A crucial aspect of this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the demanding state, accompanied by specific documentation, including a copy of the indictment or an affidavit made before a magistrate, substantially charging the accused with a crime. RSA 612:3 outlines the necessary supporting documents. When an individual is arrested in New Hampshire on a warrant issued by another state, the governor of New Hampshire must issue a warrant of arrest for the fugitive. RSA 612:6 details this procedure. The accused then has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. RSA 612:11 specifically provides for this right. During such proceedings, the asylum state governor’s warrant is prima facie evidence of its legality, but the accused can present evidence to rebut this presumption. This rebuttal must focus on defects in the extradition process, such as the lack of proper documentation or that the person is not the one named in the warrant, or that the person was not in the demanding state at the time of the alleged offense. It is not a forum to litigate the guilt or innocence of the accused, which is reserved for the demanding state’s courts. Therefore, if the documentation provided by the demanding state is incomplete or fundamentally flawed according to the UCEA’s requirements, the New Hampshire court may deny the extradition. The burden is on the demanding state to demonstrate compliance with the statutory requirements for extradition.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire as RSA Chapter 604-A, governs the process of interstate rendition. A crucial aspect of this act concerns the documentation required for an extradition request from a demanding state. Specifically, RSA 604-A:3 outlines the necessary supporting documents. For a person charged with a crime in the demanding state, the governor of that state must issue a formal written demand. This demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by an affidavit, or by a complaint made before a committing magistrate and accompanied by the warrant issued thereon. The key here is that the document must be an official charging instrument. A sworn statement from a victim detailing their account of the alleged crime, while potentially useful in a local investigation, does not constitute a formal charging document recognized for extradition purposes under the UCEA. Therefore, the absence of a formal indictment, information, or complaint and warrant means the extradition request is procedurally deficient. The governor of the demanding state cannot simply submit a victim’s sworn statement as the sole basis for the extradition demand.

New Hampshire, like all states, operates under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA) as adopted and codified in RSA Chapter 609-B. This act governs the process by which a person accused or convicted of a crime in one state can be apprehended and returned from another state. A critical aspect of this process involves the documentation required for extradition. Specifically, the demanding state must provide certain certifications to the asylum state. RSA 609-B:3 outlines the requirements for an extradition request. It mandates that the governor of the demanding state, or a person acting in their stead, must issue a formal written demand. This demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, or complaint, and the judgment of conviction or sentence. Crucially, the documentation must also include a statement by the executive authority of the demanding state that the person sought is a fugitive from justice and has been charged with or convicted of a crime in that state. The law specifies that the copy of the indictment, information, or complaint must be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. This authentication ensures the integrity and validity of the charging document. Therefore, the absence of a properly authenticated copy of the charging instrument would be a significant deficiency in the extradition request, potentially leading to its denial.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire, outlines the procedural requirements for interstate rendition of fugitives. A critical aspect of this process is the governor’s warrant, which is the formal authorization for the arrest and transfer of an accused individual. Under RSA 612:15, the governor of the demanding state must issue a warrant for the arrest of the person charged with a crime. This warrant must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment or an information or an affidavit made before a magistrate, charging the accused with the commission of the crime. The accompanying documents must substantially charge the person with having committed a crime in the demanding state. Furthermore, RSA 612:17 specifies that the governor of the asylum state, upon receiving a demand for extradition, shall issue a warrant for the arrest of the person. This warrant is directed to any peace officer of the asylum state. The demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or information supported by affidavit, or by a complaint made before a magistrate, charging the accused with the commission of a crime. The crucial element for the asylum state’s governor to consider is whether the documents presented demonstrate that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime and that the accused is a fugitive from justice. If these foundational requirements are met, the governor of the asylum state is generally obligated to issue the arrest warrant. The question hinges on the governor’s duty when presented with a proper demand, which includes the governor’s warrant from the demanding state and supporting documentation that establishes the fugitive status and presence in the demanding state at the time of the offense.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire and many other states, outlines the procedural requirements for interstate rendition. A critical aspect of this act concerns the demand for extradition and the supporting documentation. Specifically, New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) Chapter 612, which codifies the UCEA, specifies the necessary components of an extradition demand from a demanding state. RSA 612:3 mandates that the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information or accusation made before a magistrate, and a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence. Furthermore, the statute requires that these documents be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. The question probes the specific requirements for the supporting documents when a fugitive is sought from New Hampshire by another U.S. state. The core of the UCEA’s documentation requirement for extradition is the presentation of formal legal instruments that establish the basis for the criminal charge and the legal status of the accused in the demanding jurisdiction. This includes proof of a formal accusation (like an indictment or information), a record of the judicial proceeding (such as a conviction or sentence, if applicable), and proper certification by the executive authority of the demanding state. Therefore, a demand lacking a sworn statement of the facts by the prosecuting attorney or a certified copy of the warrant of arrest issued by a judge in the demanding state would render the demand procedurally deficient under the UCEA framework. The requirement is for formal, authenticated legal documents, not preliminary investigative summaries or warrants issued by non-judicial officers without accompanying formal charges.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire, governs the process of interstate rendition of fugitives. A critical aspect of this act is the requirement for the demanding state to provide specific documentation to the asylum state. RSA 612:13 outlines these requirements, specifying that the application for extradition must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by affidavit, or by a complaint made before a magistrate of the demanding state, together with the warrant issued thereupon. Crucially, the UCEA, as implemented in New Hampshire, emphasizes that the accused must be charged with a crime in the demanding state. If the individual is being sought for a civil judgment or a debt, extradition is not permissible under these statutes. The focus is solely on criminal offenses. Therefore, if the warrant from Vermont is based on a civil contempt finding related to a family support order, it does not constitute a charge of a crime under the UCEA, rendering the extradition request invalid in New Hampshire.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire, governs the process of returning fugitives from justice from one state to another. Under RSA 612:4, the governor of the demanding state must issue a formal demand for the accused, accompanied by a copy of the indictment or an affidavit made before a magistrate, charging the accused with a crime. This demand must also include a copy of the law under which the charge is made. Crucially, the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the warrant issued by the charging state’s executive authority. RSA 612:6 specifies that the governor of the asylum state, upon receiving a demand, shall arrest the accused. However, the arrest can only be made upon a warrant issued by the governor of the asylum state, based on the information in the demand. The accused then has the right to challenge the legality of the arrest and detention through a writ of habeas corpus, as outlined in RSA 612:11. During such proceedings, the asylum state’s court will examine the sufficiency of the demand and the supporting documents to ensure they meet the requirements of the UCEA and the U.S. Constitution. The focus is on whether the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state and whether the person sought is the one named in the extradition warrant. The asylum state’s governor does not conduct a trial on the merits of the case; their role is ministerial in ensuring the legal requisites for extradition are met. Therefore, the demand must clearly demonstrate that the accused is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, supported by the proper documentation.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire, governs the process of returning fugitives from justice to the demanding state. A key provision relates to the detention of a person arrested on a governor’s warrant. Under RSA 612:13, if the arrested person is not brought before a judge for a hearing within a specified period, they must be discharged. This period is crucial for ensuring due process and preventing indefinite detention without judicial review. The Act specifies that the person must be discharged unless, within a certain timeframe, they are brought before a judge and the legality of their arrest is determined. The standard timeframe for this judicial review, as established by the UCEA and adopted in New Hampshire law, is ten days from the date of arrest. This ten-day period allows for the governor’s warrant to be issued and presented, and for the arrested individual to challenge the warrant’s validity. Failure to comply with this procedural safeguard can lead to the fugitive’s release from custody related to that specific extradition request.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire in RSA 604-A, governs the process of interstate rendition. A crucial aspect of this act pertains to the governor’s role and the requirements for issuing a rendition warrant. When a person is charged with a crime in one state and flees to another, the demanding state must present specific documentation to the asylum state’s governor. This documentation, as outlined in RSA 604-A:3, typically includes an indictment, an information supported by a sworn affidavit, or a complaint before a magistrate, accompanied by a copy of the warrant issued. The demanding state must also establish that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. The governor of the asylum state, upon receiving this sworn documentation, must then determine if the person named is substantially charged with a crime and if the person sought is indeed the one who committed it. If these conditions are met, the governor may issue a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The question focuses on the absence of a requirement for a prior judicial determination of probable cause within the asylum state’s own legal framework before the governor can issue the rendition warrant, provided the demanding state’s documentation is sufficient. The UCEA prioritizes the demanding state’s charging instrument and supporting affidavits for establishing probable cause for the purpose of extradition.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in New Hampshire as RSA Chapter 604-A, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A critical aspect of this act pertains to the demand for extradition and the documentation required. When a person is sought for a crime committed in a demanding state, the governor of that state must issue a formal written demand to the governor of the asylum state. This demand must be accompanied by specific supporting documents. According to RSA 604-A:3, these documents include a copy of the indictment found in the demanding state, or an information supported by an affidavit, or a warrant issued upon such indictment or information. Crucially, the indictment, information, or affidavit must substantially charge the person demanded with having committed a crime under the law of the demanding state. Furthermore, a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, if the person has been convicted and has escaped or fled from justice, must also be provided. The statute also requires that when the person is charged with a crime but not yet convicted, the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment or information and a copy of the warrant issued upon the indictment or information. If the person has been convicted, the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence. The explanation focuses on the specific documentation required when the person sought has been convicted of a crime in the demanding state. In such a scenario, the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence. Therefore, if the demand from Maine for Mr. Abernathy, who was convicted of felony theft, is only accompanied by an arrest warrant and a sworn complaint, it is insufficient under New Hampshire law as it does not include the judgment of conviction or sentence.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire, outlines the process for interstate rendition. A crucial aspect involves the governor’s role in issuing a warrant for the arrest of a fugitive from justice. When a request for extradition is made by the executive authority of another state, New Hampshire’s governor must determine if the person named in the request is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. This determination is based on the accompanying documents, which typically include an indictment, an information supported by an affidavit, or a warrant accompanied by an affidavit. The law requires that the person be substantially charged with a crime. If the governor finds that the person is substantially charged and that the person is a fugitive from justice, the governor shall issue a warrant for the arrest of the person. RSA 612:6 mandates that the governor shall issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused person. The governor’s discretion is primarily limited to ensuring the documentation is in order and that the individual is indeed sought for a crime in the demanding state, not to adjudicate guilt or innocence. The question hinges on the governor’s mandatory action upon proper documentation and finding the individual to be a fugitive.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes between states. A key provision concerns the authority of the demanding state’s governor to issue a rendition warrant. RSA 612:6 outlines the requirements for this warrant, stipulating that it must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found or information levied, or by a judgment of conviction or sentence, or by a court order for commitment for extradition. Crucially, these accompanying documents must be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. In this scenario, the governor of Maine, the demanding state, issues a rendition warrant for Mr. Thorne. The warrant is accompanied by a sworn affidavit from the District Attorney of Cumberland County, Maine, detailing the alleged criminal conduct, and a certified copy of a bench warrant issued by a Maine District Court. While the affidavit provides a narrative, it is not a formal charging document like an indictment or information, nor is it a judgment of conviction or sentence. The bench warrant, though issued by a court, is an internal court order and not the primary charging instrument or proof of conviction required by the UCEA for extradition purposes. Therefore, the absence of an authenticated indictment, information, or judgment of conviction means the rendition warrant is not properly supported by the necessary documentation as mandated by New Hampshire law under RSA 612:6. This deficiency prevents New Hampshire from lawfully honoring the extradition request based on the provided documentation.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire, governs the process of returning fugitives from justice to the state where they are charged with a crime. A critical aspect of this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the demanding state, accompanied by specific documentation. New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) Chapter 612 outlines these procedures. Specifically, RSA 612:3 mandates that the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by an affidavit, or by a complaint made before a magistrate, charging the accused with the commission of the crime. This document must be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. Furthermore, RSA 612:4 requires that the indictment, information, or affidavit must substantially charge the accused person with having committed a crime in the demanding state. The process also involves the issuance of a warrant by the governor of New Hampshire upon receiving the proper documentation. The question tests the understanding of the foundational documentary requirements for a valid extradition demand under New Hampshire law, specifically focusing on the nature of the charging instrument and its authentication. The correct option reflects the statutory requirements for the charging document and its official attestation.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire, governs the process of interstate rendition of fugitives. A critical aspect of this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the demanding state. RSA 612:4 specifies that the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by affidavit, or by a judgment of conviction or a sentence. This documentation must be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. The question probes the procedural requirements for a valid extradition demand originating from Massachusetts to New Hampshire under the UCEA framework as adopted in New Hampshire. Specifically, it focuses on the necessary accompanying documents when the fugitive is sought based on a conviction in the demanding state. RSA 612:4(b) outlines that when the fugitive is a convicted person, the demand shall be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, together with such facts as the executive authority of the demanding state deems sufficient to identify the convicted person and to show that the person has escaped or fled from justice. The question tests the understanding of what is legally required to initiate the extradition process from a demanding state when the individual sought has already been convicted. The emphasis is on the documentation that validates the basis for the demand, ensuring it is a legitimate legal proceeding.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire, governs the process of interstate rendition. A crucial aspect of this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the demanding state. RSA 612:4 outlines the necessary documentation for such a demand, which includes a copy of the indictment, an information supported by a deposition, or a warrant of arrest, accompanied by a judgment of conviction or a sentence. The demanding state must also provide an affidavit made before a magistrate, showing the person was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. In this scenario, New Hampshire authorities received a request from Vermont for the extradition of Mr. Abernathy. The request included a warrant of arrest and an affidavit asserting his presence in Vermont during the alleged offense. However, it conspicuously lacked a formal judgment of conviction or a sentence, which is a mandatory component for extradition under RSA 612:4 when the charge is a felony conviction. The affidavit alone, while asserting presence, does not substitute for the required proof of conviction or sentencing. Therefore, the absence of a judgment of conviction or sentence renders the demand insufficient under New Hampshire law, making extradition impermissible on these grounds. The core principle is that the demanding state must present prima facie evidence of guilt or conviction, which includes the formal legal disposition of the case.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire and most other states, governs the process of returning fugitives from justice. A critical aspect of this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the demanding state’s executive authority, accompanied by a copy of the indictment or an affidavit made before a magistrate, charging the accused with a crime. RSA 612:4 outlines these requirements. If the person arrested is not the person named in the extradition warrant, or if the person claims they are not the person named, or if the person claims they were not in the demanding state at the time of the alleged commission of the crime, they are entitled to a hearing before a judge of the superior court or a justice of the supreme court. This hearing is not an inquiry into guilt or innocence but rather a limited review to determine if the person arrested is substantially the same person named in the warrant and if the documents presented are in order and allege a crime. RSA 612:10 specifies that the prisoner may be discharged if the judge or justice is satisfied that the person is not the person named in the warrant or that the person was not in the demanding state when the alleged offense was committed. Therefore, if the governor of Vermont issues a warrant for the arrest of a fugitive, and that fugitive is apprehended in New Hampshire, the fugitive has the right to challenge their identity or presence in Vermont at the time of the alleged crime through a habeas corpus proceeding, as provided by RSA 612:10. This right is fundamental to ensuring that extradition is not sought for the wrong individual or based on a false premise regarding their presence in the demanding state.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire, governs the process of returning fugitives from justice across state lines. A critical aspect of this process involves the governor’s role in issuing a rendition warrant. According to RSA 612:6, the governor of the demanding state must demand the fugitive by a sworn accusation, accompanied by a copy of an indictment found in that state or by information supported by an affidavit. The governor of the asylum state, in this case, New Hampshire, then reviews this demand. If the governor finds that the demand is in order and that the person arrested is indeed the person charged with the crime, they shall issue a warrant for the arrest of the person to be delivered to the agent of the demanding state. The law specifies that the information provided must be sufficient to establish probable cause that the arrested individual committed the offense charged in the demanding state. This involves verifying the identity of the accused and ensuring the legal sufficiency of the charging document from the demanding state. Therefore, the governor’s issuance of the rendition warrant is contingent upon a proper demand from the executive authority of the demanding state and confirmation that the arrested individual is the subject of that demand, aligning with the procedural safeguards outlined in the UCEA.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire and most other states, governs the process of interstate rendition of fugitives. A critical aspect of this process is the requirement for a formal demand from the demanding state, which must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by affidavit, or by a warrant of arrest executed by a judge or magistrate of the demanding state, charging the accused with having committed a crime in that state. RSA 615:5 outlines these requirements. The demanding state must also provide an assurance that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. RSA 615:11 further specifies that the governor of the asylum state, in this case New Hampshire, may refuse to surrender the fugitive if the documents are insufficient or if the person sought is not the one named in the warrant. The question asks about the primary legal basis for a New Hampshire court to refuse extradition when the accused is alleged to have committed a crime in Vermont. The core of extradition law is ensuring that the accused is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state and that the person sought is indeed the fugitive. Therefore, the most fundamental legal basis for refusal, as per the UCEA and New Hampshire statutes, is the lack of sufficient documentation demonstrating that the accused committed the crime in the demanding state or that the person sought is the actual fugitive. This includes the absence of a proper charging document or proof of presence in the demanding state at the time of the offense.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire, outlines the procedural framework for interstate rendition. A key provision addresses the situation where an accused person is arrested in a demanding state on a rendition warrant but is not the person named in the warrant. This scenario triggers specific legal requirements. Under RSA 612:10, if the arrested individual claims to be the person named in the warrant, the executive authority of the asylum state, upon satisfactory proof of identity, shall order the person’s discharge. However, if the arrested individual claims to be someone else, or if the demanding state’s authorities believe the warrant is for the wrong person, the asylum state’s executive authority can still hold the individual for a reasonable period, not exceeding thirty days, to allow for verification or the issuance of a new warrant. This period is crucial for ensuring due process and preventing wrongful extradition. The act does not mandate an immediate release if the person is not the one named in the warrant, but rather establishes a mechanism for correction and verification. The core principle is to prevent the extradition of an innocent individual while still facilitating the legitimate pursuit of justice across state lines. The executive authority’s role is to balance these competing interests, ensuring that the rendition process is not abused. The duration of detention for verification is a critical safeguard.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire, governs the process of returning fugitives from justice to the demanding state. Under RSA 612:3, the governor of the asylum state (New Hampshire in this case) must be satisfied that the person sought is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. This involves reviewing the application for extradition, which must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit charging the person with the crime, certified as authentic by the executive authority of the demanding state. The governor’s warrant is then issued, directing the arrest of the fugitive. While the demanding state must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, the asylum state’s role is limited to determining if the person is substantially charged and is the person named in the warrant. The governor’s decision is discretionary but must be based on the legal requirements of the UCEA. Therefore, if the demanding state, say Vermont, presents a properly certified indictment and the person sought is identified as being in New Hampshire, the governor of New Hampshire has the legal basis to issue the warrant, as the ultimate determination of guilt rests with the Vermont courts. The question of whether the fugitive is indeed guilty of the crime charged is not for the New Hampshire governor to decide during the extradition process.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire, governs the process of returning fugitives from justice from one state to another. A crucial aspect of this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the executive authority of the demanding state. This demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit made before a magistrate, charging the accused with a crime. Additionally, the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence. RSA 612:3 outlines these requirements for a valid rendition warrant. Specifically, the demanding state’s governor must issue a warrant for the arrest of the person charged. This warrant, when presented to the governor of the asylum state (New Hampshire in this case), serves as the basis for authorizing the arrest and subsequent extradition. The process emphasizes due process, ensuring that the individual is charged with a crime in the demanding state and that the proper legal documentation supports the extradition request. Failure to meet these specific documentation requirements, as stipulated by the UCEA and New Hampshire statute, can be grounds for challenging the extradition. The core principle is that the demanding state must demonstrate a lawful basis for the fugitive’s presence in its jurisdiction and the commission of a crime.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire in RSA 612, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A crucial aspect of this act pertains to the governor’s role in issuing a rendition warrant. For a rendition warrant to be validly issued, the demanding state must present a formal application to the governor of the asylum state, New Hampshire in this scenario. This application must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, affidavit, or judgment of conviction, all of which must be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. Furthermore, the application must substantially charge the person sought with having committed a crime under the laws of the demanding state. The governor of the asylum state then reviews this application. If the governor finds that the application conforms to the requirements of the UCEA and that the person sought is substantially charged with a crime, the governor may issue a rendition warrant. This warrant authorizes the arrest of the person and their delivery to an agent of the demanding state. The law requires that the person arrested be informed of the cause of their arrest and be afforded an opportunity to seek legal counsel and challenge the legality of their detention. The core of the governor’s discretion lies in ensuring that the demanding state’s application meets the statutory prerequisites and that the person is indeed sought for a criminal offense. The governor does not sit as a judge of the guilt or innocence of the accused but rather as an administrative officer ensuring compliance with the extradition process. Therefore, the presence of a sworn affidavit, properly authenticated by the demanding state’s executive authority, charging a violation of that state’s penal statutes, is a fundamental prerequisite for the governor’s issuance of a rendition warrant under RSA 612.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire, governs the process of interstate rendition. When a person is charged with a crime in one state and flees to another, the demanding state can request their return. New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) Chapter 612 outlines the specific procedures. A key aspect is the issuance of a Governor’s Warrant. This warrant is the legal basis for the arrest and detention of the fugitive. The demanding state must provide documentation, typically including a copy of the indictment or an affidavit made before a magistrate, alleging that the accused committed a crime. The asylum state’s governor then reviews this documentation. If the documentation is in order and the person is indeed in the asylum state, the governor may issue a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. This warrant is directed to any peace officer in New Hampshire. The arrested individual has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus, but this challenge is limited to specific grounds, such as whether they are the person named in the warrant, whether they were in the demanding state when the crime was committed, or if the warrant is valid on its face. The governor’s warrant is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. The process emphasizes due process for the accused while facilitating the return of fugitives to face justice. The question tests the understanding of the legal instrument that authorizes the apprehension of an individual sought for extradition under New Hampshire law.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused of crimes from one state to another. A key aspect of this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the executive authority of the demanding state. This demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by an affidavit, or by a warrant accompanied by an affidavit made before a magistrate of the demanding state, charging the accused with having committed a crime in that state. RSA 612:3 outlines these requirements. The demanding state must also present evidence that the person sought is the same person charged with the crime. New Hampshire law, specifically RSA 612:6, permits the arrest of a fugitive without a warrant upon information and belief that the fugitive has committed a crime in another state, provided a warrant has been issued in the demanding state. However, the subsequent commitment to jail for extradition purposes, as detailed in RSA 612:11, requires a judicial review of the documentation presented by the demanding state to ensure compliance with the UCEA and constitutional requirements, particularly the right to due process. The governor of New Hampshire, upon receiving a proper demand and verifying the documentation, issues a warrant for the arrest and extradition of the fugitive. The fugitive has the right to challenge the legality of their detention and the extradition process through a writ of habeas corpus, as provided by RSA 612:14. This writ allows for a review of whether the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state and if the demanding state’s documentation is in order. The fugitive cannot be tried for any offense other than that specified in the extradition request unless they voluntarily return to the demanding state and are subsequently charged with another offense. The core of the process involves the executive authority of the demanding state initiating the process with specific documentation, followed by potential arrest, judicial review, the governor’s warrant, and the fugitive’s right to challenge the process.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire in RSA 612, governs the process of interstate rendition. A crucial aspect of this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the executive authority of the demanding state. This demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by an affidavit, or by a judgment of conviction or a sentence. The documents must charge the accused with having committed a crime in the demanding state. Furthermore, the UCEA mandates that the person arrested must be brought before a judge of the superior court or a justice of the supreme court of New Hampshire. This judicial officer then determines if the arrested person is the one named in the extradition warrant and if they are substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. The accused also has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. The governor of New Hampshire then issues a warrant for the surrender of the accused to the agent of the demanding state. In this scenario, the request from the district attorney of Maine, without a formal demand from the Governor of Maine and the necessary accompanying documentation as stipulated by RSA 612, is insufficient to initiate the extradition process. New Hampshire law requires the governor’s warrant, based on a proper demand, before surrender can be compelled.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by New Hampshire, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition of fugitives. A key aspect is the governor’s role in issuing a warrant for the arrest of a person charged with a crime in another state. New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) Chapter 608, specifically RSA 608:2, details the requirements for such a warrant. The demanding state must provide an affidavit made before a magistrate, charging the accused with a crime, and accompanied by a copy of an indictment found or an information supported by an affidavit. This documentation must demonstrate that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime and that the accused has since fled. Upon receipt of a proper request, the governor of New Hampshire must issue a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The law also specifies that the person arrested has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus, as per RSA 608:12. The focus of the question is on the foundational documentation required from the demanding state to initiate the extradition process, which is the affidavit and accompanying charging instrument.