In re Hernandez
Citations
- 5 Alaska 421
Syllabus
<p>1. Criminal Daw @=241—Commitment—Habeas Corpus.</p> <p>Defendant brought habeas corpus to test the legality of his commitment “for violation of section 187, chapter 13, of the Alaska Criminal Code,” under which he was charged with the “crime of concealing a person wanted for the commission of a crime.” Held, the latter clause, which is the charging part in the commitment, does not state any offense known to the law, but it is apparent that he is to be held to await trial “for violalation of section 187, chapter 13, of the Alaska Criminal Code,” which is sufHcient to point out a charge. It is sufficient if the offense is described generally, or the section of the statute is pointed out, so that the detaining officer can see that he is commanded by a person having jurisdiction.</p> <p><@^See same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p> <p>2. Criminal Haw @=>211(1)—Complaint—Habeas Corpus.</p> <p>Habeas corpus was brought to test the sufficiency of the criminal complaint under which petitioner is held to trial. Held, that a complaint, from which it can be gathered what the offense charged is, is sufficient, unless the charge is of an offense unknown to the law, and unless the acts charged cannot under any circumstances be an offense under existing law.</p> <p>3. Habeas Corpus @=>85(1)—Evidence—Burden of proof.</p> <p>Habeas corpus being a civil suit, the burden is on the petitioner, as in every other civil suit, to establish his case. He must show that he is entitled to the relief sought.</p> <p>4. Habeas Corpus @=92(1)—Burden of Proof—Jurisdiction.</p> <p>On habeas corpus the court can examine the evidence taken • before the magistrate only sufficiently to discover whether there was any substantial ground for the exercise of judgment by the committing magistrate. It cannot go beyond that and weigh the evidence. It can say whether the complaint will admit of a construction charging a criminal offense, or whether the evidence rendered the charge
Judges: Jennings
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Ex Parte Tom TongSupreme Court· 1883-05-07· cited 168×
- Ex parte PrinceSupreme Court of Florida· 1891-01-15· cited 49×
- Jones v. DarnallIndiana Supreme Court· 1885-09-18· cited 36×
- In re SnellSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1883-09-19· cited 35×
- People Ex Rel. Van Riper v. New York Catholic ProtectoryNew York Court of Appeals· 1887-10-04· cited 28×
- Ex parte BeckerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1890-11-21· cited 15×
- Ex parte BraniganCalifornia Supreme Court· 1861-07-01· cited 13×
- Ex parte WilloughbyNevada Supreme Court· 1880-01-15· cited 11×
- State v. HaydenSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1886-06-03· cited 11×
- In re HenryNew York Supreme Court· 1895-08-15· cited 9×
- Merriman v. MorganOregon Supreme Court· 1879-01-15· cited 7×
- In re HackerS.D. California· 1896-01-06· cited 7×
- In re HardiganSupreme Court of Vermont· 1884-10-15· cited 6×
- In re SimonNew York Supreme Court· 1891-02-13· cited 4×
- Ex parte KitchenNevada Supreme Court· 1885-07-15· cited 4×
- Rash v. JenneOregon Supreme Court· 1894-07-30· cited 1×
- Ex parte DubuqueD. Alaska· 1888-09-20· cited 1×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.