The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Notes to Decisions
Generally.
In a case involving the issuance of a governor’s writ of extradition, the court noted that the foundation for extradition law is the Extradition Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. art IV § 2. Johnson v. Shuler (In re Martinez), 2001-NMSC-009, 130 N.M. 144, 20 P.3d 126, 2001 N.M. LEXIS 95 (N.M. 2001).
Burden of proof.
Under U.S. Const. art IV § 2, 31-4-2 NMSA 1978, the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, and 31-4-1 through 31-4-30 NMSA 1978, the trial court erred in releasing the prisoner from extradition custody where the prisoner failed his burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not a fugitive, because the extradition warrant was prima facie evidence that the constitutional and statutory requirements had been met for extradition, and that the asylum state was bound to deliver up the prisoner absent the proof that he was not a fugitive. Bazaldua v. Hanrahan, 1979-NMSC-025, 92 N.M. 596, 592 P.2d 512, 1979 N.M. LEXIS 1281 (N.M. 1979).
Federal law.
Delay in holding an extradition proceeding did not deprive defendant of his right to a speedy trial pursuant to the Sixth Amendment; U.S. Const. art IV § 2, which provided the basis for extradition, did not make the right to extradition contingent on there not being a delay in holding an extradition proceeding and a demanding state was qualified to fully adjudicate and to protect defendant’s speedy trial rights. State v. Sandoval, 1980-NMSC-139, 95 N.M. 254, 620 P.2d 1279, 1980 N.M. LEXIS 2767 (N.M. 1980).
Habeas corpus.
Under U.S. Const. art IV § 2 and the decisions of the United States Supreme Court thereunder, a petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus could question whether the record presented to the Governor of New Mexico constituted a substantial record of crime and whether the person demanded for extradition by another state was a fugitive; furthermore, the doctrine of constructive presence was not sufficient under the extradition requirement that the person demanded must be a fugitive from justice. Ex parte Nabors, 1928-NMSC-025, 33 N.M. 324, 267 P. 58, 1928 N.M. LEXIS 27 (N.M. 1928).
Military income taxes.
State of New Mexico could not levy, assess, and collect income tax from a Texas resident who was employed at a U.S. military installation located in New Mexico, because former 72-15-21, 1953 Comp., which imposed tax on every resident and non-resident, and the failure of former 72-15-23, 1953 Comp., to grant non-residents the same personal exemptions granted to New Mexico residents violated U.S. Const. art IV § 2 and U.S. Const. amend XIV, § 1. State ex rel. McCulloch v. Ashby, 1963-NMSC-217, 73 N.M. 267, 387 P.2d 588, 1963 N.M. LEXIS 2077 (N.M. 1963).
Non-resident taxpayers.
New Mexico Bureau of Revenue’s adoption of a regulation that created a personal exemption for non-resident taxpayers did not overcome the fact that the failure of former 72-15-23, 1953 Comp., to include such exemptions violated U.S. Const. art IV § 2 and U.S. Const. amends. XIV §§ 1, because a regulation adopted by an administrative agency creating an exemption not contemplated by the act or included within the exemption specified therein was void, and the legislature could not delegate authority to a board or commission to adopt rules or regulations that abridged, enlarged, extended, or modified the statute that created a right or imposed a duty. State ex rel. McCulloch v. Ashby, 1963-NMSC-217, 73 N.M. 267, 387 P.2d 588, 1963 N.M. LEXIS 2077 (N.M. 1963).
Time limitations.
Defendant’s conviction for raping his 10-year old stepdaughter was affirmed where the tolling provision of 30-1-9A NMSA 1978 applicable to defendant’s voluntary absence from New Mexico did not violate the privileges and immunities clause pursuant to U.S. Const. art IV § 2 and to equal protection pursuant to U.S. Const. amends. XIV; after the crime, defendant resided in Texas for 11 years, and the statute of limitations was properly tolled for the period defendant concealed himself out of state. State v. Cawley, 1990-NMSC-088, 110 N.M. 705, 799 P.2d 574, 1990 N.M. LEXIS 329 (N.M. 1990).