103 F.3d 758 (9th Cir. 1996), 96-10064, United States v. Keys
|Citation:||103 F.3d 758|
|Party Name:||D.A.R. 14,933 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nathaniel Earl KEYS, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Case Date:||December 13, 1996|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Submitted Nov. 5, 1996.[*]
Celia M. Rumann, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Phoenix, AZ, for defendant-appellant.
Joan G. Ruffennach, Assistant United States Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-95--00290-EHC.
Before: CHOY, REAVLEY [**] and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
LEAVY, Circuit Judge:
Nathaniel Earl Keys timely appeals the district court's affirmance of his conviction, following a bench trial before a magistrate judge, for assault on his daughter in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(d) 1 and 1152. Keys argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the victim, who was one-fourth Indian, was not an enrolled member of any Indian tribe. Keys also argues that the Federal Enclaves Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1152, is an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to apply a general criminal code to the activities of non-Indians in Indian Country. We affirm Keys' conviction.
FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS
In June 1992, Nathaniel Earl Keys had a daughter. The daughter's mother is an enrolled member of the Colorado River Indian Tribe and her enrollment certificate lists her as one-half Indian blood. Keys is African-American.
At the time of the daughter's birth her mother was not living with Keys, although both the mother and Keys lived on the Colorado
River Indian Tribe Reservation. The daughter lived with her mother for the first eighteen months of her life. Sometime in November 1993 the mother voluntarily gave custody of her daughter to Keys. Keys later established paternity and was granted formal custody of his daughter in tribal court. In June 1994, the mother was granted visitation rights of one 24-hour visitation period each week. On the second such visit, the mother discovered "bruises, scabs, and marks" on her daughter's bottom and called Tribal Social Services and her tribal probation officer to report possible child abuse. The mother and her probation officer took the daughter to the Indian Health Service Hospital to be examined by her treating physician. The probation officer took the daughter to the Tribal Social Services Department and placed her under the protective custody of the Tribe. She also filed a petition with the Tribe for a "child in need of care."
In March 1995, Keys was charged in an information with assault on "Jane Doe, an Indian, by striking beating or wounding," in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(d) and 1152. 2 Keys pled not guilty and a bench trial was held on May 17, 1995. At the conclusion of the trial, Keys moved for judgment of acquittal and to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction. The motion for judgment of acquittal was based, in part, on the assertion that the government had failed to prove that the victim was an Indian. In support of the motion to dismiss, it was asserted that, under United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), exercise of jurisdiction based on the Federal Enclaves Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1152, was...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP