This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case involves a parolee who fled Ohio to New Mexico, claiming he feared death or great bodily harm from Ohio prison officials if returned to custody. The parolee, a Native American advocate, alleged that his criticism of Ohio's prison system and advocacy for Native American rights led to threats and retaliation by prison officials. He was declared a parole violator-at-large after failing to report for arrest following a misdemeanor charge in Kentucky, which he claimed was fabricated (paras 1-34).
Procedural History
- Reed v. Tate, No. 91 Cl-122 (Scioto County, Ohio C.P. Ct. Sept. 18, 1991): Ohio court dismissed Reed's habeas corpus petition challenging the rescission of his parole.
- Reed v. Tate, 1992 WL 129404 (Ohio Ct. App. June 10, 1992): Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Reed's habeas corpus petition.
- Reed v. King, No. CIV-94-1267 MV/LFG (D. N.M. Nov. 10, 1994): Federal court denied Reed's civil rights lawsuit seeking to block extradition, stating he must exhaust state remedies first (paras 8, 36).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (State of New Mexico on behalf of Ohio): Argued that the extradition documents were in order, Reed was charged with a crime, and he was a fugitive from justice. They contended that Reed's evidence of threats and duress was irrelevant to the extradition process (paras 40-41, 50).
- Appellee (Reed): Claimed he fled Ohio under duress due to credible threats of death or great bodily harm from prison officials. He argued that he was not a fugitive from justice and that the extradition documents were incomplete and invalid (paras 1, 40-42).
Legal Issues
- Was Reed a fugitive from justice under the Extradition Clause?
- Were the extradition documents in order and sufficient to justify Reed's extradition?
- Did Reed's claim of duress and threats from Ohio prison officials preclude his extradition?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico: Affirmed the district court's grant of habeas corpus, holding that Reed was not a fugitive from justice and could not be extradited to Ohio (para 44).
Reasons
Per Franchini CJ. (Serna, McKinnon, and Minzner JJ. concurring):
The Court found that Reed was not a fugitive from justice because he fled Ohio under duress, fearing death or great bodily harm from state officials. The Court emphasized that extradition laws are not intended to facilitate the violation of constitutional rights, including the right to life and safety. The evidence of threats against Reed was uncontroverted, and the State of Ohio failed to refute his claims. The Court also held that the extradition documents were ultimately in order but found that Reed's unique circumstances justified granting habeas corpus (paras 1, 42-54, 81-125).
Minzner J., specially concurring:
Justice Minzner agreed with the result but disagreed with the majority's analysis of fugitivity. She argued that the decision should rest on Ohio's failure to demonstrate probable cause for Reed's parole violation. She emphasized that Ohio had not provided a preliminary hearing or sufficient evidence to justify the restraint of Reed's liberty, as required under Morrissey v. Brewer (paras 128-150).
Baca J., dissenting:
Justice Baca dissented, arguing that the majority's decision improperly expanded the role of an asylum state in extradition matters. He contended that the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedent limit the scope of inquiry in extradition cases, and New Mexico courts lacked authority to adjudicate Ohio's alleged misconduct. He maintained that Reed's claims should be addressed in Ohio or federal courts, not in New Mexico (paras 151-157).