Cited by

530 ; Cf. State v. Limberg, 274 Minn. 31, 36 , (recognizing that the burden is on defendant to rebut presumptive effect of governor’s rendition warrant).

State v. Limberg, 274 Minn. 31, 36 , -67 (1966).

State v. Limberg, 274 Minn. 31, 37

Wagner v. Hedman, 292 Minn. 358 , State v. Limberg, 274 Minn. 31 , State ex rel.

Wagner v. Hedman, 292 Minn. 358 , State v. Limberg, 274 Minn. 31 , State ex rel.

Conversely stated, ‘the question1 of alibi is not open for consideration if there is fair evidence that the appellant was at the place of the crime at the time of it.’ ” State v. Limberg, 274 Minn. 31, 36

In State v. Limberg, 274 Minn. 31, 36 , we established the burden of proof imposed upon a person challenging extradition on the ground that he was not present in the demanding state at the time of the offense: «* * * where the person whose extradition is sought does present evidence of his absence from the demanding state

“(d) Was the person confined by virtue of the extradition warrant actually present in the state where the criminal act was committed at the time thereof or, if not, did he perform an act outside of the requisitioning state intentionally resulting in a crime in such state?” In State v. Limberg, 274 Minn. 31 , we set forth in more detail what the requirements are with *361 respect to a valid extradition proceeding.

Cf. State v. Limberg, 274 Minn. 31 , 142 N. W. (2d) 563 , and State ex rel.

Nevertheless, the rules governing extradition articulated in State v. Limberg, 274 Minn. 31 , 142 N. W. (2d) 563 , impose on petitioner an onerous burden in order to rebut effectively the presumptions raised by the warrant.

State v. Limberg, 274 Minn. 31 , 142 N. W. (2d) 563 , however, presents an analogous situation.

At the request of the State of Wisconsin, a final decision was deferred until the following Monday at which time the court held “that the proof is not sufficient to warrant the Court upholding the Rendition Warrant and the Writ of Habeas Corpus will be granted.” The law governing extradition hearings is fully set forth in State v. Limberg, 274 Minn. 31 , 142 N. W. (2d) 563 .

In State v. Limberg, 274 Minn. 31 , 142 N. W. (2d) 563 , we held that where an alleged fugitive positively and unequivocally testifies that he was not present in the demanding state at the time of the alleged offense, the demanding state must present some testimony, which will be subject to cross-examination by the fugitive’s counsel, to support the a

der the laws of Minnesota that as a prerequisite to the validity of an extradition it must appear that “[t]he person confined by virtue of the extradition warrant was actually present in the demanding state at the time the offense was committed or, if not, did perform an act outside of the demanding state intending that the result be the accomplishment of a crime in such state.” State v. Limberg, 274 Minn. 31, 33 , 142 N. W. (2d) 563, 564 ; State ex rel.

On oral argument, petitioner concedes that the State of Colorado submitted sufficient rebuttal testimony of his presence in Colorado on that date to support a finding to that effect by the habeas court and to satisfy the requirements of State v. Limberg, 274 Minn. 31 , 142 N. W. (2d) 563 .

The requisites for valid extradition in a case of this kind have so recently and comprehensively been discussed in State v. Limberg, 274 Minn. 31 , 142 N. W. (2d) 563 , that it would be futile to restate them here.