The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in Mississippi, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition of fugitives. A critical aspect of this process involves the demand from the demanding state. Mississippi Code Section 45-23-5 specifically addresses the requirements for the demanding state’s executive authority to certify the application for extradition. This certification must include a copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit charging the person sought with a crime. Furthermore, the demanding state’s executive authority must also certify that the person is a fugitive from justice and that the copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit is authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. The question hinges on the specific documents that must accompany the demand for extradition from a demanding state, as stipulated by Mississippi law implementing the UCEA. The correct option reflects these statutory requirements for a valid extradition demand, ensuring that the requesting state properly substantiates its claim that the individual has committed a crime and fled from its jurisdiction. The explanation focuses on the legal basis for these requirements, emphasizing the need for authenticated charging documents and proof of fugitive status to prevent arbitrary rendition and protect individual liberties.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Mississippi, outlines the procedural requirements for interstate rendition. When a person is charged with a crime in one state and flees to another, the demanding state must provide specific documentation to the asylum state’s governor. This documentation, as per Mississippi’s implementation of the UCEA (Mississippi Code Annotated § 99-3-1 et seq.), must include a copy of the indictment, an information, or a complaint, accompanied by a judgment of conviction or a sentence, if the person has been convicted. Crucially, if the person is charged but not yet convicted, the documentation must include an affidavit or sworn statement made before a magistrate, substantially charging the person with a crime. The governor of the asylum state, upon receiving these documents, must review them to ensure they meet the statutory requirements for extradition. If the documents are found to be in order and the person is indeed sought for a crime in the demanding state, the governor issues a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The law emphasizes that the person sought must be substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, and the documents must be formally certified by the executive authority of the demanding state. This ensures that the extradition process is based on a valid legal basis and not arbitrary.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Mississippi, governs the process of returning fugitives from justice. Under Mississippi law, specifically referencing Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-19-1, a person charged with a crime in another state who flees to Mississippi may be arrested and detained upon a proper requisition from the executive authority of the demanding state. The demanding state’s executive authority must issue a warrant for the apprehension of the fugitive, accompanied by a copy of the indictment or an affidavit made before a magistrate, charging the fugitive with a crime. This requisition must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment or information, or by a complaint made before a magistrate, authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. Upon receipt of the requisition, the Governor of Mississippi must issue a warrant to any peace officer or other person whom the Governor may think fit, directing the arrest of the accused. The arrested person must then be brought before a judge or magistrate, who will inform them of the complaint and their right to a hearing. The hearing is crucial to determine if the person is the one named in the extradition warrant and if they are substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. If the judge or magistrate finds that the person is the subject of the warrant and is substantially charged, they will be committed to jail to await a reasonable time for the return of the warrant of removal. Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-19-15 specifies that the accused has the right to be brought before a judge or magistrate and to demand proof of the requisition. The focus is on the legal sufficiency of the demand and the identity of the accused. The Governor’s warrant is prima facie evidence of its own legality and of the rightfulness of the arrest.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Mississippi and codified in Mississippi Code Annotated \(§ 99-3-1 et seq.\), governs the process of interstate rendition. A crucial aspect of this act pertains to the requirements for a valid rendition warrant issued by the asylum state’s governor. Mississippi Code Annotated \(§ 99-3-17\) specifically addresses the form and content of such warrants. The law mandates that the warrant must substantially charge the accused with having committed a crime in the demanding state. This means that the warrant must contain an allegation that the individual is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding jurisdiction, supported by appropriate documentation. The phrase “substantially charged” is key; it does not require the charging document to meet the stringent standards of a Mississippi indictment but rather to present a prima facie case of criminality in the demanding state. The demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment or information, or a sworn affidavit made before a magistrate, charging the accused with the commission of the crime. Furthermore, the warrant must also include a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, if the accused has been convicted or sentenced. The question posits a scenario where the rendition warrant from Texas, seeking the return of Mr. Silas Croft for an alleged theft, only includes an affidavit sworn before a Texas notary public, not a magistrate, and fails to attach a copy of the indictment or information. This omission violates the foundational requirements of the UCEA as adopted by Mississippi, specifically the need for the charging instrument to be sworn before a magistrate and the requirement to attach the indictment or information. Therefore, the Mississippi governor would be justified in refusing to issue a rendition warrant based on these deficiencies.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Mississippi, outlines the procedural requirements for interstate rendition. A critical aspect of this process involves the governor’s role in issuing a warrant for the arrest of a fugitive. Mississippi Code Section 99-19-5 governs the issuance of such warrants. This section mandates that the demanding state’s governor must present an application for extradition that includes a copy of the indictment found or an information or affidavit made before a magistrate, substantially charging the person demanded with the commission of a crime in that state. Crucially, the application must also be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, if the person has been convicted or sentenced. In the scenario presented, the state of Alabama seeks the extradition of Mr. Silas Croft for a parole violation, which is a continuation of a previously imposed sentence. Therefore, Mississippi’s governor, in considering the extradition request, must be presented with documentation confirming Mr. Croft’s status as a parole violator, which directly relates to his prior conviction and sentencing in Alabama. The absence of a conviction or sentence document in the initial request, even if a parole violation is alleged, would render the application incomplete under Mississippi’s interpretation of the UCEA, as the parole violation is intrinsically tied to the underlying conviction and sentence. The law requires proof of the offense for which the person is sought, and in cases of parole violation, this proof inherently includes the original conviction and sentencing that led to the parole.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in Mississippi, governs the process of interstate rendition of fugitives. A crucial aspect of this act involves the governor’s role in issuing a Governor’s Warrant. For a fugitive to be extradited, the demanding state must provide documentation to the asylum state’s governor. This documentation typically includes an affidavit, or indictment, charging the person with a crime, and a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence. Mississippi Code Section 99-19-17 specifically outlines the requirements for the demanding state’s application. It states that the application must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found in the demanding state, or an information or affidavit made before a magistrate of the demanding state, charging the accused with the commission of a crime. Furthermore, it requires a copy of the judgment of conviction or the sentence, or an order of probation, if the fugitive has been convicted and has escaped or been pardled or been released from prison. In this scenario, the Governor of Arkansas, demanding the extradition of Ms. Anya Sharma, has provided a certified copy of an indictment and a certified copy of a judgment of conviction. This documentation meets the fundamental requirements outlined in Mississippi law for initiating an extradition process. The presence of both the charging instrument (indictment) and proof of a prior conviction (judgment of conviction) satisfies the statutory prerequisites for the Mississippi Governor to consider the extradition request. Therefore, the Governor of Mississippi is legally empowered to issue a Governor’s Warrant based on this submitted evidence.

Mississippi’s Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-19-1 et seq., governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes from other states. A crucial aspect of this act is the requirement for a valid rendition warrant issued by the governor of the asylum state. For a rendition warrant to be valid, it must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information or affidavit made before a magistrate of the demanding state, charging the accused with the commission of a crime. This documentation must be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. The law also specifies that the accused has the right to be brought before a judge in the asylum state to test the legality of their arrest and the rendition warrant. This habeas corpus proceeding is a critical safeguard. If the demanding state fails to properly authenticate the charging documents, or if the documents are otherwise deficient according to the demanding state’s laws, the governor of Mississippi may refuse extradition. The absence of a proper indictment, information, or affidavit, or the lack of executive authentication, renders the rendition request procedurally flawed under Mississippi law, necessitating the discharge of the accused from custody unless the defect can be promptly cured by the demanding state.

The scenario involves a fugitive, Ms. Anya Sharma, charged with a felony in Mississippi who has fled to Alabama. Mississippi’s Governor, as the executive authority, must issue a formal demand for the fugitive’s return. This demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment or an affidavit made before a magistrate, charging Ms. Sharma with the commission of the crime. The demand must also be accompanied by a copy of the charging document, authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state (Mississippi). The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, adopted by both Mississippi (Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-1 et seq.) and Alabama, governs this process. The Governor of Mississippi must certify that the person is a fugitive from justice and has fled from Mississippi. The accompanying documents must be properly authenticated, demonstrating that Ms. Sharma is substantially charged with a crime under Mississippi law. The process requires the requesting state to demonstrate that the individual is indeed a fugitive from justice, meaning they were present in Mississippi at the time of the alleged crime and subsequently left the state. Upon receiving the proper documentation from Mississippi, the Governor of Alabama will issue a warrant for Ms. Sharma’s arrest. The core of the question lies in the specific evidentiary requirement for the initial demand from Mississippi.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Mississippi, outlines the process for interstate rendition of fugitives. A crucial aspect involves the governor’s warrant, which is the formal authorization for the arrest and transfer of a fugitive. Under Mississippi law, specifically referencing the principles of the UCEA as codified, the executive authority of the asylum state (Mississippi, in this scenario) must issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused upon receiving a demand from the executive authority of the demanding state. This warrant is based on a formal application from the demanding state, which typically includes a copy of the indictment or an affidavit made before a magistrate charging the person with a crime. The Mississippi Code, particularly provisions aligned with the UCEA, mandates that the governor’s warrant be accompanied by the necessary supporting documents to establish probable cause for the rendition. The absence of a formal application or a properly authenticated supporting document from the demanding state would render the governor’s warrant invalid for the purpose of extradition. Therefore, the governor’s warrant must be predicated on a valid demand that includes the required documentation as stipulated by the UCEA and Mississippi’s adoption of it. The scenario describes a situation where the demand from Alabama lacks the required authenticated affidavit. This deficiency means the governor’s warrant, if issued, would not be legally sufficient to compel the fugitive’s rendition under Mississippi law.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Mississippi, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition of fugitives. A key aspect of this process involves the demand for extradition by the demanding state and the subsequent arrest and hearing in the asylum state. Mississippi Code Section 45-23-7 details the requirements for the demanding state’s governor to certify that the accused is a fugitive from justice and is substantially charged with a crime. This certification must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit charging the person, sworn to before a magistrate of the demanding state. Furthermore, Mississippi Code Section 45-23-13 specifies that if the person is arrested on a governor’s warrant, they have the right to a habeas corpus hearing to challenge the legality of the arrest and detention. The hearing’s scope is generally limited to determining if the person is the one named in the warrant, if they are substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, and if they are a fugitive from justice. The asylum state’s governor’s role is ministerial in reviewing the documentation from the demanding state. The question revolves around the specific legal standard required for the asylum state’s governor to issue a rendition warrant, which is grounded in the documentation provided by the demanding state’s governor. This includes ensuring the accused is charged with a crime and is a fugitive. The governor of the asylum state, in this case, Mississippi, must find that the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state and is a fugitive from justice, based on the submitted documents.

The scenario involves a fugitive, Ms. Anya Sharma, who has allegedly committed a felony in Mississippi and has fled to California. Mississippi’s Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in Mississippi Code Annotated § 99-19-1 et seq., governs the process of demanding and surrendering fugitives from justice. For extradition to be valid, the demanding state (Mississippi) must present a formal demand to the asylum state (California). This demand, as per Section 99-19-3, must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found or by an information supported by affidavit, or by a complaint made before a magistrate, charging the accused with having committed the crime. Crucially, the charging document must substantially charge the accused with the commission of a crime under the laws of Mississippi. The information provided states that Ms. Sharma is charged with aggravated assault, a felony under Mississippi law. The question asks about the necessary documentation Mississippi must provide to California. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act requires the demand to be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by affidavit, or a complaint made before a magistrate. Since the charge is a felony, an indictment is the most common and legally robust method of charging in Mississippi for felonies, although an information supported by affidavit can also be used. The presence of a sworn affidavit supporting the charge is critical if an information or complaint is used, ensuring probable cause. Therefore, a copy of the indictment or an information supported by an affidavit is essential for a valid extradition demand. The phrase “charging the accused with having committed the crime” implies that the document must clearly state the alleged offense and that it is supported by a sworn oath or affirmation, as required by due process and the principles of the Extradition Act. The absence of a sworn affidavit or indictment would render the demand insufficient.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Mississippi and most other states, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. Key to this process is the role of the demanding state’s executive authority, typically the governor, in issuing a formal demand for the fugitive. This demand must be accompanied by specific documentation, as outlined in Mississippi Code Annotated § 99-19-1 et seq., which mirrors the UCEA. Crucially, the demand must include a copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit charging the person, along with a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence. Furthermore, the demanding state must certify that the person sought is a fugitive from justice and that the application is made in good faith for the purpose of punishing the fugitive. The burden is on the demanding state to demonstrate these elements. In Mississippi, upon receipt of a valid rendition warrant, the accused is arrested. They then have the right to challenge their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. During such proceedings, the court examines the validity of the rendition warrant and the supporting documentation. The inquiry is generally limited to whether the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, whether the person is a fugitive from justice, and whether the rendition warrant is in proper form. The Mississippi Supreme Court has consistently held that the asylum state’s courts cannot inquire into the guilt or innocence of the accused; that determination rests solely with the demanding state’s courts. Therefore, the presence of a valid indictment or equivalent charging document from the demanding state, properly certified by the demanding governor, is a foundational requirement for a lawful extradition.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Mississippi and most other states, governs the process of interstate rendition. When a person is sought for a crime in one state (the demanding state) and is found in another state (the asylum state), the demanding state must present specific documentation to the asylum state’s governor. This documentation, as outlined in Mississippi Code Section 97-21-11, must include an affidavit made before a magistrate, substantially charging the accused with having committed a crime in the demanding state. Additionally, a copy of the indictment or information, accompanied by a judgment of conviction or a sentence, if the person has been convicted, or an arrest warrant if the person has not been convicted, is required. The Mississippi Supreme Court has consistently held that the demanding state’s documentation must establish probable cause that the person sought committed the crime. The burden is on the demanding state to provide sufficient proof. The asylum state’s governor has the authority to issue a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. However, the fugitive has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. In such proceedings, the asylum state court reviews the validity of the extradition documents and whether the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. The court’s inquiry is generally limited to whether the person is the one named in the rendition warrant, is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, and is a fugitive from justice. The Mississippi Code, specifically Section 97-21-25, further clarifies that the person arrested may be committed to jail for a period not exceeding 30 days, pending the arrival of a sufficient warrant for their removal. This period can be extended by the court for good cause shown.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Mississippi, governs the process of interstate rendition. Key to this process is the requirement that the demanding state must demonstrate that the individual sought is substantially charged with a crime in that state. Mississippi Code Section 45-21-7 outlines the documentation required for an extradition request. This includes a copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit charging the person, along with a copy of the warrant issued upon such charge. The affidavit must set forth sufficient facts to establish probable cause that the person committed the offense. In this scenario, the governor of Louisiana must ensure that the requisition includes a sworn affidavit that details the alleged criminal acts committed by Mr. Abernathy within Louisiana’s jurisdiction, thereby establishing probable cause for the charge. Without this foundational probable cause documentation, the extradition request is legally insufficient under Mississippi law as implemented by the UCEA. The focus is on the *sufficiency of the charge and evidence presented in the request*, not on the arresting officer’s independent belief or the fugitive’s intent to avoid prosecution.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Mississippi, governs the process of interstate rendition. Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-19-1 et seq. outlines the specific procedures. When a person is charged with a crime in one state and flees to another, the demanding state must present a formal application for extradition to the asylum state’s governor. This application must include a copy of the indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate, charging the accused with the commission of the crime. Additionally, it must be accompanied by a copy of the warrant issued upon such indictment or affidavit, and such charge must substantially set forth the particulars of the offense. The demanding state’s governor must also certify that the person is a fugitive from justice. In Mississippi, the governor of the asylum state, upon receiving the proper documentation, will issue a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The fugitive then has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. The court, in reviewing the habeas corpus petition, will examine whether the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, whether they are a fugitive from justice, and whether the documentation meets the statutory requirements. The focus is on the regularity of the proceedings, not the guilt or innocence of the accused. Therefore, the presence of a sworn affidavit before a magistrate in the demanding state, coupled with a warrant issued thereon, and a certification by the demanding governor that the accused is a fugitive, are all essential components for initiating the extradition process under Mississippi law.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Mississippi, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition of fugitives. A crucial aspect is the governor’s role in issuing a warrant for arrest upon receiving a formal demand from the executive authority of another state. Mississippi Code Section 99-19-11 mandates that the demanding state must present an affidavit made before a magistrate, charging the accused with a crime, or an indictment, or an information accompanied by an arrest warrant. The law also requires that a copy of the charging document be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. In this scenario, the demand from Governor Anya Sharma of Louisiana is accompanied by an indictment, which is a valid charging document under Mississippi law. The indictment is properly authenticated by Governor Sharma, the executive authority of Louisiana. Therefore, Governor Tate Reeves of Mississippi is legally obligated to issue a rendition warrant. The absence of a sworn affidavit from a Louisiana magistrate is not a fatal flaw when an indictment is provided and properly authenticated, as Mississippi Code Section 99-19-11 explicitly permits an indictment as a basis for extradition. The focus is on the proper charging instrument and its authentication by the demanding state’s executive.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in Mississippi, governs the process of interstate rendition. A crucial aspect of this act involves the governor’s role in issuing a warrant for arrest and delivery. When a person is sought for a crime allegedly committed in another state, the demanding state must present a formal application to the governor of the asylum state, which in this case is Mississippi. This application must include a copy of the indictment found or an information supported by evidence, or a warrant accompanied by affidavits. Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-3-1 outlines the requirements for the demanding state’s application. Specifically, it mandates that the application must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment or information and proof of guilt, or by a warrant and affidavits. The governor of Mississippi, upon receiving a proper application, has the authority to issue a warrant for the apprehension of the fugitive. This warrant is the legal instrument authorizing the arrest. Therefore, the governor’s warrant is the foundational document that initiates the formal extradition process within Mississippi, ensuring that the individual is lawfully detained pending further proceedings or delivery to the demanding state. The absence of this warrant would render any detention for extradition purposes unlawful under Mississippi law.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Mississippi and most other states, outlines the procedural requirements for interstate rendition of fugitives. A crucial aspect of this act concerns the sufficiency of the demanding state’s documentation. For an arrest to be lawful under the UCEA, the governor of the asylum state must issue a warrant based upon a formal demand from the executive authority of the demanding state. This demand must be accompanied by specific documents to establish probable cause that the accused committed the offense charged. Mississippi Code Section 99-21-5 mandates that the demanding state must provide a copy of the indictment, an information supported by evidence, or a complaint made before a magistrate, along with an arrest warrant. Furthermore, the documents must be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state, attesting to their genuineness. In this scenario, the demanding state of Alabama provides a sworn affidavit from a detective detailing the alleged criminal conduct and a copy of the arrest warrant issued by an Alabama magistrate. While the affidavit provides factual assertions, it does not constitute one of the statutorily enumerated documents (indictment, information, or complaint before a magistrate) as the primary basis for the demand. The arrest warrant, though present, is issued based on this affidavit, which itself is not a statutorily sufficient charging instrument for extradition purposes under the UCEA as adopted by Mississippi. Therefore, the documentation is insufficient for a lawful extradition under Mississippi law because it lacks the required charging instrument like an indictment or a formal information supported by evidence, with the affidavit not serving as a substitute for these.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in Mississippi, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A critical aspect of this act involves the documentation required for a valid extradition request. Mississippi law, consistent with the UCEA, mandates that the demanding state’s executive authority (typically the governor) must issue a formal written demand for the fugitive. This demand must be accompanied by authenticated copies of the charging documents that establish the crime in the demanding state. These charging documents can be an indictment, an information supported by a sworn affidavit, or a warrant. The authentication process ensures the integrity and validity of the documents presented to the asylum state’s governor. Mississippi Code Section 99-19-17 specifically outlines these requirements, stating that the demand shall be accompanied by “a copy of the indictment found in the demanding State; or by information supported by proof to the satisfaction of the executive authority of the demanding State; or by a warrant issued by a magistrate of the demanding State.” The phrase “proof to the satisfaction of the executive authority” in the context of an information implies that the information must be supported by sworn testimony or affidavits that provide probable cause for the accusation. Therefore, the absence of sworn proof supporting an information would render the extradition request procedurally defective under Mississippi law.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Mississippi, governs the process of interstate rendition of fugitives. Mississippi Code Annotated § 99-19-1 et seq. outlines the specific procedures. When a person is charged with a crime in one state and flees to another, the demanding state can seek their return. The process begins with an application for a warrant of arrest by the executive authority of the demanding state. This application must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, affidavit, or judgment of conviction, authenticated as required by law. Mississippi law, consistent with the UCEA, requires that the person arrested be brought before a judge or magistrate in Mississippi. The arrested individual has the right to challenge the legality of their detention, typically through a writ of habeas corpus. The scope of inquiry in a habeas corpus proceeding in Mississippi extradition cases is generally limited to whether the person arrested is the person charged, whether the demanding state has jurisdiction over the alleged offense, and whether the warrant is in proper form. The Mississippi courts will not delve into the guilt or innocence of the accused or the merits of the charges in the demanding state. Therefore, if the documentation is in order and the individual is identified as the fugitive sought, the Mississippi court must order their return to the demanding state. The core principle is that the courts of the asylum state should not obstruct the extradition process based on the merits of the case.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Mississippi, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition. A key provision concerns the demand for extradition. Mississippi Code Section 99-19-31 specifies that the demanding state must provide an affidavit, information, or indictment charging the accused with a crime, accompanied by a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence. Furthermore, the documents must show that the person was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. The governor of the asylum state, in this case Mississippi, upon receiving such a demand, shall issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. The governor’s warrant, as per Mississippi Code Section 99-19-35, must substantially recite the facts necessary to the issuance of the warrant. This includes the finding that the accused is a fugitive from justice and that the demand is in accordance with law. The role of the Mississippi governor is to review the documentation presented by the demanding state to ensure compliance with the UCEA and the U.S. Constitution’s Extradition Clause. If the documentation is insufficient or fails to establish that the accused committed a crime in the demanding state and is a fugitive, the governor may refuse to issue the warrant. The question tests the understanding of what constitutes sufficient documentation for a governor’s warrant to be issued in Mississippi for interstate rendition.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Mississippi and most other states, governs the process of interstate rendition of fugitives. A crucial aspect of this act involves the documentation required for a valid extradition request. Specifically, Mississippi Code Section 99-19-13 outlines that the demanding state must provide an indictment, an information supported by affidavit, or a warrant, along with a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence. The question posits a scenario where a fugitive is sought from Mississippi by California. California’s request includes an arrest warrant and a certified copy of the trial court’s sentencing order, but it omits a formal information document typically filed by a prosecutor to initiate criminal proceedings in California. Mississippi law, as codified in UCEA and its interpretations, requires that the requesting state’s documentation must substantially conform to the requirements of the demanding state’s laws for charging a crime. While an arrest warrant and a sentencing order are critical components, the absence of the charging instrument (information, in this case) can render the request procedurally defective if that instrument is a mandatory part of the charging process in California for the alleged offense. The question implicitly tests the understanding that extradition is a statutory process with specific documentary prerequisites, and failure to meet these prerequisites can lead to the denial of the extradition request. The core issue is whether the submitted documents satisfy the statutory requirements for a lawful demand. Given that California law generally requires an information or indictment to formally charge a felony, the omission of this document, even with an arrest warrant and sentencing order, creates a deficiency. Therefore, Mississippi authorities would likely deny the request due to the insufficient documentation, specifically the lack of the formal charging document required by California law to initiate the criminal proceedings for which rendition is sought. The correct response hinges on the procedural requirements of extradition and the proper documentation necessary for a valid demand.

Mississippi’s Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in Mississippi Code Annotated § 99-3-1 et seq., governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A critical aspect involves the governor’s role and the documentation required for a valid rendition warrant. When a demand for extradition is made by the executive authority of another state, the Mississippi Governor must review the accompanying documents. These documents typically include an indictment, an information supported by a sworn affidavit, or a complaint made before a magistrate, along with a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence. Mississippi Code Annotated § 99-3-5 specifically addresses the requirements for the demanding state’s executive authority to certify the accompanying documents. The governor of the asylum state, in this case Mississippi, must be satisfied that the person sought is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state and that the documents presented are in order. If the governor finds these conditions met, they issue a warrant for the apprehension of the person. The law does not require the governor to conduct an independent investigation into the guilt or innocence of the accused; rather, the focus is on the legal sufficiency of the demand and accompanying documentation. Therefore, the governor’s primary duty is to ensure that the demand is regular and that the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, as evidenced by the submitted legal instruments.

Mississippi law, specifically under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act as codified in Mississippi Code Annotated § 99-3-1 et seq., outlines the procedures and requirements for interstate rendition. A crucial aspect is the governor’s role in issuing the rendition warrant. For a rendition warrant to be valid, the asylum state governor must be presented with a sworn indictment, information supported by a verified complaint, or a criminal complaint before a magistrate, accompanied by an affidavit or other evidence that substantially charges the person sought with having committed a crime in the demanding state. Furthermore, the documents must show that the person sought was within the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime and that the person has since fled from justice. Mississippi Code Annotated § 99-3-5 details the requirements for the application for requisition, which must include a copy of the indictment or information and affidavit, and a statement that the accused was within the demanding state when the crime was committed and has fled. The governor of Mississippi, upon receiving such an application, must be satisfied that the accused has committed a crime and has fled from justice. The process is designed to ensure due process for the individual sought while facilitating cooperation between states in criminal matters. The absence of any of these foundational elements can render the rendition warrant defective.

The scenario presented involves a fugitive, Silas Croft, who is sought for a felony offense in Mississippi and has fled to Texas. Mississippi’s Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in Mississippi Code Annotated § 99-19-1 et seq., governs the process of extraditing individuals from other states. The core of this process is the demand made by the executive authority of the demanding state (Mississippi) upon the executive authority of the asylum state (Texas). This 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 having committed a crime in Mississippi. The Act also specifies that the indictment, information, or affidavit must substantially charge the person with having committed a crime under the law of Mississippi. Furthermore, the application for extradition must be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence. In this case, Silas Croft is sought for a felony offense, meaning a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. The information provided indicates that a warrant has been issued for his arrest in Mississippi. For a valid extradition request from Mississippi to Texas, the Governor of Mississippi must formally request the return of Silas Croft. This request must be supported by specific documentation, including a copy of the indictment or information and affidavit charging the offense, and importantly, a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence if the person has been convicted. The question asks what is *required* for the Governor of Mississippi to formally request extradition. While an arrest warrant is necessary for the initial apprehension, the formal demand for extradition requires more. Specifically, Mississippi Code Annotated § 99-19-5 outlines the requirements for the demanding governor’s warrant. It states that the warrant must be accompanied by “a copy of the indictment found in the state having jurisdiction of the offense, or by an information thereto supported by affidavit, or by a complaint made before a magistrate, setting forth the offense charged, to which shall be annexed a copy of any warrant which was issued.” Crucially, if the person has been convicted, the warrant must be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of conviction or the sentence. Since Silas Croft is sought for a felony offense and the question implies a formal request for extradition following his flight, the most comprehensive and legally required documentation for the Governor’s formal demand includes evidence of the conviction or the charging instrument. Given the options, the most accurate and encompassing requirement for the Governor’s formal demand, particularly for a fugitive sought for a felony, is the authenticated copy of the indictment or an equivalent charging document, along with a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence if applicable. The question asks what is required for the Governor to *formally request* extradition. The initial arrest warrant in Mississippi is an internal document. The formal request to Texas must be based on the charging instrument and, if convicted, the judgment. Therefore, the presence of an authenticated copy of the indictment or an equivalent charging document, alongside a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, is the critical requirement for the Governor’s formal demand.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Mississippi, governs the process of returning fugitives from justice to the demanding state. A key aspect of this process involves the issuance of a Governor’s Warrant. Under Mississippi law, specifically referencing the principles outlined in the UCEA as codified, the Governor of Mississippi must issue a warrant for the arrest of a person charged with a crime in another state if the demanding state has presented sufficient documentation. This documentation typically includes a copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit made before a magistrate, charging the accused with a crime, and a copy of the warrant issued upon such charge, or a judgment of conviction or a sentence. The Governor’s determination is based on whether the person sought is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state and has fled from justice. The UCEA mandates that the executive authority of the demanding state certify the accompanying documents as authentic. Mississippi law, consistent with the UCEA, requires the Governor to be satisfied that the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state and has fled from its justice. The Governor’s warrant is the crucial executive document authorizing the arrest and detention of the fugitive pending extradition.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Mississippi and most other states, outlines the procedural requirements for interstate rendition of fugitives. Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-19-1 et seq. governs extradition within the state. For a demand for extradition to be valid under Mississippi law, the accompanying documents must establish that the person sought is charged with a crime in the demanding state, that the person was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime, and that the person is a fugitive from justice. The Mississippi Governor, upon receiving a proper demand from the executive authority of another state, has a duty to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. This warrant is then delivered to a sheriff or other authorized officer for execution. The accused has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. In such proceedings, the court will review the sufficiency of the extradition documents and whether the person is indeed the one named in the warrant and a fugitive. The scope of review in habeas corpus is generally limited to whether the Governor had jurisdiction to issue the warrant, whether the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, and whether the person is a fugitive. The fact that the person may have been outside the demanding state at the time of the alleged offense, or that they may have a valid defense to the charge, are matters to be determined by the courts of the demanding state, not by the asylum state’s court in a habeas corpus proceeding. Therefore, if the paperwork is facially sufficient and establishes these core elements, the Governor’s warrant should be upheld, and the individual should be surrendered.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Mississippi, governs the process of interstate rendition. A crucial aspect of this process involves the governor’s role. When a demand for extradition is made by the executive authority of another state, the Mississippi governor must issue a warrant for the arrest of the person sought. This warrant is the legal instrument that authorizes law enforcement to take the individual into custody for the purpose of rendition. The UCEA specifies the contents of this warrant, which must substantially charge the person with a crime under the laws of the demanding state. While the governor reviews the demand and supporting documents, the ultimate authority to issue the rendition warrant rests with the governor. The question asks about the authority that issues the warrant to apprehend a fugitive from justice in Mississippi, based on a demand from another state. This authority is the Governor of Mississippi. The Governor’s role is central to the formal commencement of the extradition process under the UCEA, as implemented in Mississippi. The issuance of the rendition warrant is a discretionary act by the Governor, predicated on the sufficiency of the demand and supporting documentation. It is not an automatic process, and the Governor has the power to deny an extradition request if it does not meet legal requirements.

The scenario presented involves a fugitive, Mr. Silas Croft, who has fled Mississippi after being charged with a felony. He is apprehended in the state of Louisiana. Mississippi, as the demanding state, seeks to extradite Mr. Croft. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Mississippi and Louisiana, governs this process. Under the UCEA, Mississippi must present a formal application for extradition to the governor of Louisiana. This application must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found or an information supported by a sworn affidavit. The information must charge the fugitive with a crime committed in Mississippi. The law also requires that the fugitive be substantially charged with a crime. The process involves the governor of the asylum state (Louisiana) reviewing the documentation to ensure it conforms to the requirements of the UCEA and that the person sought is indeed the fugitive. If the documentation is in order and the charges are valid, the governor of Louisiana will issue a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Croft. The fugitive then has the right to challenge the legality of his detention through a writ of habeas corpus. However, the core requirement for Mississippi to initiate the extradition is the presentation of a formal application supported by a valid charging document, such as an indictment or an information with a sworn affidavit, demonstrating that Mr. Croft is substantially charged with a crime committed within Mississippi’s jurisdiction.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Mississippi, governs the process of interstate rendition. A crucial aspect of this act concerns the demand for extradition. When a person is charged with a crime in one state and flees to another, the demanding state must present a formal demand to the asylum state. This demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found or an information supported by an affidavit. Mississippi law, specifically within the framework of the UCEA, requires that the demanding state’s governor certify that the person sought is a fugitive from justice. This certification is a fundamental prerequisite for the asylum state’s governor to issue a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The information provided in the question indicates that the governor of Texas has certified that Ms. Anya Sharma is a fugitive from justice, and the accompanying documents include an indictment from a Texas grand jury. This aligns with the statutory requirements for an extradition demand under the UCEA, as adopted and enforced in Mississippi. Therefore, the Mississippi governor’s issuance of a warrant is the legally mandated next step, assuming all other procedural requirements are met and no specific defenses are raised by Ms. Sharma.