Strassheim v. Daily
Citations
- 221 U.S. 280
- 31 S. Ct. 558
- 55 L. Ed. 735
- 1911 U.S. LEXIS 1733
Syllabus
<p>In a habeas corpus proceeding in extradition it is sufficient if the count in the indictment plainly shows that the defendant is charged with a crime. Pierce v. Creecy, 210 U. S. 387.</p> <p>Where a guaranty goes not to newness but to fitness of articles furnished, it is a material fraud to furnish old articles even if they can meet the test of the guaranty; and the fact that the purchaser may rely on the guaranty does not exclude the possibility that the purchase price was obtained by false representations as to the newness of the articles.</p> <p>A State may punish one committing crimes dorite outside its jurisdiction for the purpose of producing detrimental effects within it when it gets the criminal within its power.</p> <p>Commission of the crimes alleged in this indictment — bribery of a public officer and obtaining public money under false pretenses— warrants punishment by the State aggrieved even if the offender did not come into the State until after the fraud was complete.</p> <p>An overt act becomes retrospectively guilty when the contemplated result ,ensues.</p> <p>One who is never within the State before the commission of a crime producing its results within its jurisdiction is nota fugitive from justice within the rendition provisions of the Constitution, Hyatt v. Cork-ran, 188 U. S. 691, but, if he commits some overt and material act within the State and then absents himself, he becomes a fugitive from justice when the crime is complete if not before.</p> <p>Although absent from the State when the crime was completed in this ' case, the party charged became a fugitive from justice by reason of his having committed certain material steps towards the crime within the State, and the demanding State is entitled to his surrender under Art. IV, § 2 of the Constitution of the United States and the statutes providing for the surrender of fugitives from justice.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that acts performed outside a jurisdiction, but with intended results within it, justify that jurisdiction in punishing the cause of the harm as if defendant had been present
- explaining that a state may criminally prosecute an individual for acts performed outside the state when the individual’s acts “intended to produce and [do] produc[e] detrimental effects within it”
- upholding Michigan prosecution for acts of bribery and obtaining public money under false pretenses in Illinois
- “Acts done outside a jurisdiction, but intended to produce and producing detrimental effects within it, justify a State in punishing the cause of the harm as if he had been present at the effect, if the State should succeed in getting him within its power.”
- “Acts done outside a jurisdiction, but intended to produce and producing detrimental effects within it, justify a state in punishing the cause of the harm as if he had been present at the effect, if the state should succeed in getting him within its power.”
- “Acts done outside a jurisdiction, but intended to produce and producing detrimental effects within it, justify a state in punishing the cause of the harm as if he had been present at the effect, if the state should succeed in getting him within its power.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Holmes
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.