Hogan v. O'Neill
255 U.S. 52 (1921)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Hogan v. O'Neill, 255 U.S. 52 (1921)

Hogan v. O'Neill

No. 120

Submitted November 8, 1920

Decided January 31, 1921

255 U.S. 52

Syllabus

1. For the purposes of interstate rendition (Rev.Stats. § 5278), an indictment which omits otherwise to allege the place of the offense lays it sufficiently in the demanding state if its caption designates a

Page 255 U. S. 53

court and county and a law of that state (Mass.Ref.Laws, c. 218, § 20) makes such designation equivalent to an allegation that the act was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of such court. P. 255 U. S. 54.

2. Laws of a demanding state affecting the right to rendition are noticed by federal courts, and may be noticed by the governor of the state upon whom demand is made. P. 255 U. S. 55.

3. In Massachusetts, as at common law, a conspiracy to commit a crime is itself a criminal offense, although no overt act be done in pursuance of it. Id.

4. A person duly charged in the demanding state who was present there when the offense is alleged to have been committed and afterwards departed, although not for the purpose of escaping prosecution, to another state, is a fugitive from justice under Rev.State. § 5278; Constitution, Art. IV, § 2. Id.

5. Whether the person demanded is in fact a fugitive is for determination by the governor of the state upon which demand is made, whose conclusion, evinced by the warrant of arrest, must stand in habeas corpus unless clearly overthrown. P. 255 U. S. 56.

Affirmed.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.