## Facts

- Kealy was indicted in Iowa for obtaining money by false pretenses and then left Iowa for New York.
- Iowa sought and obtained Kealy’s interstate extradition from New York based on the false-pretenses indictment.
- After Kealy was returned to Iowa, the State filed a separate indictment charging him with forgery.
- Kealy moved for release from custody on the forgery case, arguing Iowa could not require him to answer a different charge than the one named in the extradition demand unless he was first allowed to return to New York.
- The trial court denied the motion, Kealy pleaded guilty to forgery, and the court imposed a prison sentence for forgery as well as a sentence on the false-pretenses case.
- Kealy appealed, challenging Iowa’s authority to detain and prosecute him on the forgery indictment after extradition on the false-pretenses charge.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant extradited from another state to Iowa on a specified charge has a right to be free from detention or prosecution in Iowa for a different Iowa offense unless first given an opportunity to return to the surrendering state.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed the judgment.
- Iowa had authority to prosecute and punish Kealy for forgery even though he was extradited to Iowa based on a different charge.
- Kealy had no right, based on the interstate extradition process, to be returned to New York before being required to answer additional Iowa charges.
- The court noted the absence of fraud or trickery in securing Kealy’s presence in Iowa through extradition.

## Legal Principles

- In interstate extradition, once the asylum state surrenders the fugitive and the fugitive is lawfully within the receiving state, the receiving state may exercise its ordinary criminal jurisdiction over the person.
- Interstate extradition procedures do not confer on the fugitive a personal right to limit prosecution in the receiving state to only the offense named in the requisition.
- Any objection that prosecution exceeds the scope of the surrender is not a personal immunity of the defendant; it is, if anything, an interest of the surrendering state.
- Absent fraud in obtaining the defendant’s presence, the manner by which the defendant is brought within the receiving state does not defeat the receiving state’s jurisdiction to proceed on additional charges for crimes committed there.

## Conclusion

The court held that a person extradited to Iowa on one charge could also be prosecuted in Iowa for other offenses committed in Iowa, and that the defendant had no extradition-based right to return to the surrendering state before answering the additional indictment.


State v. Kealy, 56 N.W. 283 (Iowa 1893)