State v. Nioce, s. 58328
| Citation | 716 P.2d 585,239 Kan. 127 |
| Decision Date | 28 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | 58530,Nos. 58328,s. 58328 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellant, v. Bennie NIOCE, Appellee, and STATE of Kansas, Appellant, v. Emery L. NEGONSOTT, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
Syllabus by the Court
Congress' intent in enacting 18 U.S.C. § 3243 (1982) was to grant the State of Kansas jurisdiction over all crimes committed by or against Indians on Indian reservations located in Kansas. The United States retains concurrent jurisdiction with Kansas over crimes listed in the Federal Major Crimes Act. 18 U.S.C. § 1153 (1982). (Overruling State v. Mitchell, 231 Kan. 144, 642 P.2d 981 [1982].
Micheal A. Ireland, Co. Atty., argued, and Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., was with him on brief, for appellant in No. 58328.
Timothy G. Madden, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued, and Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., and Phillip A. Burdick, Co. Atty., were with him on brief, for appellant in No. 58,530.
William E. Enright, Topeka, argued and on brief, for appellee Nioce.
Robert L. Tabor, Topeka, argued, for appellee Negonsott.
These consolidated actions raise the issue of whether the State of Kansas has jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed by or against Indians on Indian reservations located within this state. While the facts are not essential for resolution of this issue, they are briefly stated as follows.
Appellee Bennie Nioce is an American Indian who allegedly committed aggravated battery upon another American Indian while on the Pottawatomie County Indian Reservation in Jackson County, Kansas. The Jackson County District Court, relying on our holding in State v. Mitchell, 231 Kan. 144, 642 P.2d 981 (1982), dismissed the charges against Nioce. Identical charges were subsequently reinstated against Nioce, based upon a recent decision of the Federal District Court of Kansas, Iowa Tribe of Indians of Kansas and Nebraska v. State of Kansas, No. 83-4304 (D.Kan.1984). The federal court concluded Mitchell was wrongly decided. The Kansas trial court, however, once again dismissed the charges against Nioce, following Mitchell.
Appellee, Emery Negonsott is a Kickapoo Indian who is charged with aggravated battery for the shooting of another Kickapoo Indian. The shooting occurred within the territorial confines of the Kickapoo Indian Nation Reservation, located in Brown County, Kansas. He was convicted by jury of the crime charged but the district court, relying on Mitchell, subsequently set aside the conviction for lack of jurisdiction.
The State appeals, urging the court to reconsider its decision in Mitchell and give Kansas jurisdiction over all crimes committed by or against Indians on Indian reservations in Kansas.
The primary issue is whether the State of Kansas has jurisdiction to try the appellants for the crime of aggravated battery. Resolution of this issue depends upon our interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 3243 (1982):
The first provision of this statute is clear and appears to confer jurisdiction on the State of Kansas over all offenses committed by or against Indians on Indian reservations within the State. However, the second paragraph renders the statute ambiguous as it preserves federal jurisdiction over "offenses defined by the laws of the United States committed by or against Indians on Indian reservations."
Appellees argue the Federal Major Crimes Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1153 (1982), grants exclusive federal jurisdiction over Indian offenses. That statute provides in part:
"Any Indian who commits against the person or property of another Indian or other person any of the following offenses, namely, murder, manslaughter, kidnaping, rape, carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of sixteen years, assault with intent to commit rape, incest, assault with intent to commit murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, arson, burglary, robbery, and larceny within the Indian country, shall be subject to the same laws and penalties as all other persons committing any of the above offenses, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States."
We first had occasion to interpret 18 U.S.C. § 3243 in State v. Mitchell, 231 Kan. 144, 642 P.2d 981 (1982). There, the defendant was charged with murder in the second degree. Both the defendant and the victim were "Indians" and the offenses occurred within "Indian country" as those terms are defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1151 et seq. (1982). The defendant argued 18 U.S.C. § 1153 granted exclusive federal jurisdiction over Indian offenses, while the State contended 18 U.S.C. § 3243 gave Kansas concurrent jurisdiction. After examining the legislative history of the statutes in question, we determined that Congress, in enacting 18 U.S.C. § 3243, intended to retain exclusive jurisdiction over the crimes specifically enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 1153, including murder. Therefore, we held the State acted beyond the scope of its jurisdictional authority in trying the defendant for murder.
The court, in so holding, relied primarily upon the case of Youngbear v. Brewer, 415 F.Supp. 807 (N.D.Iowa 1976), aff'd 549 F.2d 74 (8th Cir.1977). There, the federal court interpreted an identical grant of jurisdiction to Iowa, and held that Congress intended to preserve exclusive federal jurisdiction over the major crimes.
This court in Mitchell and the federal court in Youngbear cited the legislative history of 18 U.S.C. § 3243 as support for their interpretation of the statute. The original draft of the bill conferring jurisdiction on the State of Kansas specifically provided that concurrent jurisdiction was relinquished to the State and further provided that the Federal Major Crimes Act be modified accordingly. 86 Cong. Rec. 5596, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. (May 6, 1940). A subsequent committee amendment, however, rejected the references to concurrent jurisdiction and modification of the Major Crimes Act. We concluded, as did the Youngbear court, that deletion of this language clearly indicated Congress' intent to preserve exclusive federal jurisdiction over the major crimes and to give Kansas jurisdiction only over minor offenses. State v. Mitchell, 231 Kan. at 150, 642 P.2d 981. See also Youngbear v. Brewer, 415 F.Supp. at 813.
The State now urges us to reexamine Mitchell in light of the Federal District Court of Kansas decision in Iowa Tribe of Indians of Kansas and Nebraska v. State of Kansas, No. 83-4304 (D.Kan.1984).
In Iowa Tribe, the plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that 18 U.S.C. § 3243 does not make Kansas gambling laws prohibiting the sale of "pull-tab cards" applicable to such activities on the Iowa Indian reservation. The State counterclaimed, seeking a declaration that 18 U.S.C. § 3243 grants jurisdiction over Indians for acts occurring on the reservation which are recognized as crimes under Kansas law. The federal district court concluded that 18 U.S.C. § 3243 confers complete (but not exclusive) criminal jurisdiction upon the State of Kansas. In reaching its decision, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Patton
...defense counsel's experience); State v. Mitchell, 231 Kan. 144, 146-47, 642 P.2d 981 (1982), overruled on other grounds State v. Nioce, 239 Kan. 127, 716 P.2d 585 (1986) (when defendant not informed of right to appeal at time sentence imposed, did not know time frame for exercise of right, ......
-
Negonsott v. Samuels
...on Kansas to prosecute "all crimes committed by or against Indians on Indian reservations located in Kansas." State v. Nioce, 239 Kan. 127, 131, 716 P.2d 585, 588 (1986). On remand, the Brown County District Court sentenced petitioner to imprisonment for a term of three to ten Petitioner th......
-
State v. Scoville
...at 101, 967 P.2d 1079 (quoting State v. Mitchell, 231 Kan. 144, 147, 642 P.2d 981 [1982], overruled on other grounds State v. Nioce, 239 Kan. 127, 716 P.2d 585 [1986]). The court specifically held that a "full awareness of appeal rights necessarily includes the knowledge that there is a tim......
-
Negonsott v. Samuels
...Kansas Supreme Court reversed in a decision overruling Mitchell, and Negonsott's case was remanded for sentencing. See Kansas v. Nioce, 239 Kan. 127, 716 P.2d 585 (1986). Negonsott was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three to ten Negonsott filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpu......
-
Tribal v. State Government: Drawing the Lines
...S.Ct. 1119, 1121-25, 122 L.Ed.2d 457, 463-68 (1993); United States v. Ward, 28 F. Cas. 397 (D. Kan. 1863) (No. 16,639); State v. Nioce, 239 Kan. 127, 716 P.2d 585 (1986); State v. Levier, 226 Kan. 461, 462-63, 601 P.2d 1116, 1118 (1979); In re Now-ge-zhuck, 69 Kan. 410, 412-21, 76 P. 877, 8......
-
Criminal Jurisdiction Over Tribal Land in Kansas Dueling Sovereigns
...U.S. at 101. [FN35]. 507 U.S. at 101. [FN36]. 507 U.S. at 101. [FN37]. 507 U.S. at 101. [FN38]. 507 U.S. at 101. [FN39]. State v. Nioce, 239 Kan. 127, 131, 716 P.2d 585 (1986). [FN40]. Negonsott v. Samuels, 933 F.2d at 824. [FN41]. Negonsott, 507 U.S. at 101. [FN42]. 507 U.S. at 102. [FN43]......