 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Thomas8/25/1988
Submitted on Briefs July 14, 1988
The State appeals the decision of the Sixteenth Judicial District Court contending that the lower court erred in construing the limits of its jurisdiction. We agree with the State and reverse
The issue is: Do state courts have jurisdiction over a non-Indian charged with violating Section 61-7-108, MCA, on an Indian reservation? Section 61-7-108, MCA, reads:
"Immediate notice of accidents. The driver of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of any person or property damage to an apparent extent of $250 or more shall immediately by the quickest means of communication give notice of such accident to the local police department if such accident occurs within a municipality, otherwise to the office of the county sheriff or the nearest office of the highway patrol."
The relevant facts are as follows: Respondent Thomas allegedly struck a calf owned by the Parkers, an Indian family ranching on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation. The State alleged that Thomas violated the statute by leaving the scene of the accident without giving notice to law enforcement
The District Court held that state courts do not have jurisdiction for the crime of failing to report an accident where: the accident occurred within the reservation, the driver was a non-Indian, and the property involved in the accident belonged to an Indian. The lower court reached its conclusion by applying Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978), 435 U.S. 191, 98 S.Ct. 1011, 55 L.Ed.2d 209, and the adoption of the enabling act of Montana under Article I of the Montana Constitution. Oliphant, according to the lower court, prevents jurisdiction of the offense at issue in tribal court because respondent Thomas is a non-Indian. The Montana Constitution, according to the lower court, prevents jurisdiction in state courts under Montana's enabling act because the act provides that reservations are under the absolute jurisdiction of the United States. We disagree with the lower court and reverse on the authority of United States v. Wheeler (1978), 435 U.S. 313, 98 S.Ct. 1079, 55 L.Ed.2d 303, and Draper v. United States (1896), 164 U.S. 240, 17 S.Ct. 107, 41 L.Ed. 419. We hold for the purposes of remand that the state has jurisdiction
First, in regard to the lower court's holding on Article I of the Montana Constitution, the lower court failed to consider Draper Draper held that the prohibition in Montana's enabling act against state jurisdiction on Indian reservations did not prevent the State from assuming jurisdiction of crimes committed by non-Indians against non-Indians. Draper, 164 U.S. at 244, 17 S.Ct. at 108
Construction of the applicable federal jurisdictional statute also confirms that state courts have jurisdiction of certain crimes committed on Indian reservations. The statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1152, reads
"Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the general laws of the United States as to the punishment of offenses committed in any place within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, except the District of Columbia, shall extend to the Indian Country
"This section shall not extend to offenses committed by one Indian against the person or property of another Indian, nor to any Indian committing any offense in the Indian country who has been punished by the local law of the tribe, or to any case where, by treaty stipulation, the exclusive jurisdiction over such offenses is or may be secured to the Indian tribes respectively."
18 U.S.C. § 1152 (1983)
According to the United States Supreme Court:
"Despite
Page 1 2 3 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|