STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. COSTA LJUNGDAHL
v.
JIMMY SULLIVAN, AS SHERIFF OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Costa Ljungdahl challenged the sufficiency of a New York indictment for subornation of perjury in extradition proceedings brought by New York. The Florida Supreme Court held that an indictment in extradition proceedings is tested under the law of the demanding state, and if it substantially charges a crime under that state's law, it is sufficient, even if inartificially drawn.
The indictment is sufficient. In extradition proceedings, the sufficiency of an indictment is tested by the law of the demanding state, not the asylum state. If the indictment substantially charges the accused with commission of a crime under the demanding state's laws, it is sufficient regardless of artistic deficiencies in its form.
“in Extradition proceedings the sufficiency of the indictment is to be tested by the law of the demanding State. If the indictment, though inartificially drawn, substantially charges the alleged fugitive from the commission of a crime under the laws of the demanding state, it is sufficient.”
States the controlling legal principle for testing indictment sufficiency in extradition cases.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Governor of Florida issued a warrant of rendition for Costa Ljungdahl in extradition proceedings instituted by the State of New York. Ljungdahl su…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Extradition cases and more on FLexlaw
Warrant of rendition having been issued by the Governor of Florida in Extradition proceedings instituted by the State of New York in re Costa Ljungdahl, the appellant sued out writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, challenging the sufficiency of thé involved indictment to substantially charge a criminal offense.
On return and hearing, the circuit court remanded petitioner and, thereupon, he perfected his appeal to this Court seeking the reversal of the judgment of remand.
The material part of the indictment is as follows:
“The Grand Jury of the County of Suffolk, by this indictment, accuse Ellen Norma Ljundahl Scharf and Costa Ljungdahl of the following crime: subornation of perjury in the first degree.
FIRST COUNT
“Defendants on or about the 24th day of May, 1943, at Riverhead, Town of Riverhead, Suffolk County, New York, committed the crime of subornation of perjury in the first degree, contrary to Penal Law, Section 1632,”
It appears to be settled beyond question that in Extradition proceedings the sufficiency of the indictment is to be tested by the law of the demanding State. If the indictment, though inartificially drawn, substantially charges the alleged fugitive from the commission of a crime under the laws of *819the demanding state, it is sufficient. See Pierce v. Creecy, 210 U. S. 387, 28 Sup. Ct. 714, 52 L. Ed. 1113.
The form of indictment as used in this case has been held sufficient to substantially charge a criminal offense under the laws of the State of New York. See People v. Bogandoff, et al., 254 N. Y. 16, 171 N. E. 890, 69 A.L.R. 1378; People v. Farley, 298 N. Y. Sup. 876, affirmed by Court of Appeals, 277 N. Y. 617, 14 N. E. (2nd) 190.
The judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
CHAPMAN, C. J., BROWN and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
concurring specially:
The legal sufficiency of an indictment among other questions was involved in the extradition proceedings of Thompson v. Sheriff Baker reported in 154 Fla. 303, 17 So. (2nd) 228. I, therefore, concur in the opinion and judgment as prepared by Mr. Justice BUFORD in the case at bar.
CHAPMAN, C. J.,
concurring specially:
The legal sufficiency of an indictment among other questions was involved in the extradition proceedings of Thompson v. Sheriff Baker reported in 154 Fla. 303, 17 So. (2nd) 228. I, therefore, concur in the opinion and judgment as prepared by Mr. Justice BUFORD in the case at bar.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Dick White v. Kelly, 107 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed upon the rule stated in State ex rel. Myers v. Allen, 83 Fla. 655, 92 So. 155, 157; Chase v. State, 93 Fla. 963, 113 So. 103, 107, 54 A.L.R. 271; State ex rel. Ljungdahl v. Sullivan, 155 Fla. 817, 21 So. 2d 713; accord, Kelly v. State ex rel. Curry, Fla.1956, 92 So. 2d 172, 175. CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., HORTON, J., and BARNS, PAUL D., Associate Judge, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Pierce v. Creecy, 210 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1908)
- State v. Gray, 154 Fla. 255 (Fla. 1944)
- Thompson v. Baker, 154 Fla. 303 (Fla. 1944)