When any person within this state is charged on the oath of any credible person before any judge of this state with the commission of any crime in any other state and, except in cases arising under section 16-19-107, with having fled from justice, or with having been convicted of a crime in that state and having escaped from confinement, or having broken the terms of his bail, probation, or parole, or whenever complaint has been made before any judge in this state setting forth on the affidavit of any credible person in another state that a crime has been committed in the other state and that the accused has been charged in such state with the commission of the crime, and, except in cases arising under section 16-19-107, has fled from justice or with having been convicted of a crime in that state and having escaped from confinement, or having broken the terms of his bail, probation, or parole, and is believed to be in this state, the judge shall issue a warrant directed to any peace officer commanding him to apprehend the person named therein, wherever he may be found in this state, and to bring him before the same or any other judge or court which may be available in or convenient of access to the place where the arrest may be made, to answer the charge or complaint and affidavit, and a certified copy of the sworn charge or complaint and affidavit upon which the warrant is issued shall be attached to the warrant.
Source: L. 53: p. 317, § 13. CSA: C. 72, § 58. CRS 53: § 60-1-13. L. 57: p. 379, § 2. C.R.S. 1963: § 60-1-13.
ANNOTATION
Extradition proceedings need not be instituted by formal requisition from the executive authority of the demanding state and warrant from the executive authority of the asylum state, but such a requisition and warrant must issue at some point in the proceedings. Capra v. Miller, 161 Colo. 448, 422 P.2d 636 (1967).
And issuance of governor's warrant renders question of prior arrest moot. The governor's warrant for defendant's arrest for extradition having issued and having been filed, the issue as to whether he was lawfully arrested by an unverified information in the first instance is not just academic but moot. Velasquez v. People, 154 Colo. 284, 389 P.2d 849 (1964); McClearn v. Jones, 162 Colo. 354, 426 P.2d 192 (1967); Dilworth v. Leach, 183 Colo. 206, 515 P.2d 1130 (1973).
The indictment or criminal complaint is controlling when determining whether a crime has been charged. Fox v. People, 161 Colo. 163, 420 P.2d 412 (1966).
It is sufficient if the language used fully states an offense denounced by the statutes; even a mistake in stating the number of a statute is immaterial. Fox v. People, 161 Colo. 163, 420 P.2d 412 (1966).
Charge of desertion and nonsupport sufficient to support extradition. Fox v. People, 161 Colo. 163, 420 P.2d 412 (1966).
Complaint and affidavit established probable cause crime of escape committed. Where the complaint and affidavit was based upon the personal information and knowledge of the chief records officer of the Kentucky state reformatory, stating under oath that appellant had been confined in the Kentucky state reformatory under a sentence of 10 years for armed robbery, pursuant to a judgment of conviction from the Jefferson circuit court of Louisville, Kentucky; that affiant had been the chief records officer of the reformatory for 16 years and was in charge of the official custody and control records of the appellant at the reformatory; and that he knew, from these records and his own personal knowledge, that appellant did escape from the reformatory, leaving while on a hospital trip to Louisville, Kentucky, the complaint and affidavit is sufficient to establish probable cause that appellant had committed the substantive crime of escape under the Kentucky statute. Norrod v. Bower, 187 Colo. 421, 532 P.2d 330 (1975).
Right to certified copy of complaint waived. Although a photostatic copy of the complaint and affidavit upon which the warrant issued was served, rather than a certified copy as required by this section, the defendant made no objection to this during the proceedings in the trial court when it could have been corrected. He cannot now raise that issue on appeal and must be deemed to have waived his right to receive a certified copy when he proceeded to trial on the merits. Fox v. People, 161 Colo. 163, 420 P.2d 412 (1966).
Testimony of prosecution witness was admissible. Eathorne v. Nelson, 180 Colo. 288, 505 P.2d 1 (1973).
Applied in Lucero v. Martin, 660 P.2d 902 (Colo. 1983); People v. Schneckloth, 660 P.2d 1293 (Colo. 1983); Roy v. Simonet, 696 P.2d 822 (Colo. 1985); Moore v. Simonet, 696 P.2d 823 (Colo. 1985); Evans v. Simonet, 699 P.2d 1337 (Colo. 1985).