Lafferty v. State, for and in Behalf of Jameson, No. 10063

CourtSupreme Court of South Dakota
Writing for the CourtRENTTO
Citation80 S.D. 411,125 N.W.2d 171
PartiesApplication of Henry LAFFERTY for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Applicant and Appellant, v. STATE of South Dakota, for and in Behalf of G. Norton JAMESON, Warden of South Dakota State Penitentiary, Respondent.
Decision Date17 December 1963
Docket NumberNo. 10063

Page 171

125 N.W.2d 171
80 S.D. 411
Application of Henry LAFFERTY for Writ of Habeas Corpus,
Applicant and Appellant,
v.
STATE of South Dakota, for and in Behalf of G. Norton
JAMESON, Warden of South Dakota State
Penitentiary, Respondent.
No. 10063.
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Dec. 17, 1963.

[80 S.D. 412] Robert L. O'Connor, Sioux Falls, for applicant and appellant.

Frank L. Farrar, Atty. Gen., Walter W. Andre, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for respondent.

RENTTO, Judge.

An information filed in the Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit by the State of South Dakota, charged the applicant, Henry Lafferty, with having committed the crime of rape in the second degree in Ziebach County, South Dakota, on August 15, 1960. On arraignment he appeared with counsel and pleaded guilty. Upon such plea he was found guilty as charged and sentenced to five years in the State Penitentiary. This appeal presents the contention

Page 172

that the state lacked jurisdiction to proceed against him.

While confined in the penitentiary he applied to the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit for a writ of habeas corpus claiming that because he was an Indian ward of the United States government enrolled on the census rolls on the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation, and his offense was committed in Indian country, it was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal court. The writ was issued, but after a hearing thereon, at which he appeared with counsel, the trial court found that the offense was not committed within Indian country, quashed the writ and denied the applicant any relief. He appeals.

It is conceded by all parties that if the locus of this offense was within Indian country, the other essentials are present to [80 S.D. 413] bring it within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States under the provisions of 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1153, the ten major crimes statute. Nor is there any dispute as to where the act took place. The parties stipulated that it was committed on Lot 26 of Kennedy's Acreage, which is incorporated into the town of Dupree, Ziebach County, South Dakota. There is nothing in the evidence, nor in the patent issued therefor to Robert M. Kennedy on June 11, 1912, to indicate that the United States ever in any manner reserved title to this area or that it was ever previously allotted to an Indian.

What constitutes Indian country has been declared by the Congress. 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1151, provides:

'Except as otherwise provided in sections 1154 and 1156 of this title, the term 'Indian country', as used in this chapter, means (a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.'

In the circumstances of this case we are not concerned with subsections (b) or (c). Applicant's claim of Federal jurisdiction, as we understand it, is predicated only on subsection (a).

The Cheyenne River Indian Reservation was created by the Act of April 30, 1888, Ch. 206, 25 Stat. 94, and the Act of March 2, 1889, Ch. 405, 25 Stat. 888. It is agreed by the parties that the area now occupied by the town of Dupree, including Kennedy's Acreage, is within the boundaries of the reservation as defined in those laws. The next Federal enactment of importance in this matter is the Act of May 29, 1908, Ch. 218, 35 Stat. 460. It concerns an area of the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation and an area of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. The parties also [80 S.D. 414] agree that the above described townsite is within the area of the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation described in this act, but they differ as to whether the act changed the character of such premises from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • United States ex rel. Miner v. Erickson, No. 19977.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • June 5, 1970
    ...all Indian title to the land. The South Dakota Supreme Court has relied upon La Plant in a similar holding. Lafferty v. State, 80 S.D. 411, 125 N.W.2d 171 The difficulty with reliance upon the La Plant case is the expressed overruling of the case by this court some 46 years later. See Putna......
  • U.S. v. Dupris, No. 78-1575
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • November 27, 1979
    ...jurisdiction in the opened area on nonallotted land. See, e. g., United States v. La Plant, 200 F. 92 (D.S.D.1911); Lafferty v. State, 80 S.D. 411, 125 N.W.2d 171 (1963); State v. Sauter, 48 S.D. 409, 205 N.W. 25 (1925). At trial Mr. Aberle, the present States Attorney for Dewey County, Sou......
  • State v. Perank, No. 860243
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • July 17, 1992
    ...478 F.2d 684 (8th Cir.1973); Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. Herbst, 334 F.Supp. 1001, 1005 (D.Minn.1971); Lafferty v. State, 80 S.D. 411, 125 N.W.2d 171, 174 On the basis of the above, we conclude that operative statutory language that restores reservation land to the public domain ......
  • Beardslee v. United States, No. 18565.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • December 21, 1967
    ...v. De Marrias, 79 S.D. 1, 107 N.W.2d 255 (1961), cert. denied 368 U.S. 844, 82 S.Ct. 72, 7 L.Ed.2d 42; Lafferty v. State ex rel. Jameson, 80 S.D. 411, 125 N.W.2d 171 (1963); Wood v. Jameson, 81 S.D. 12, 130 N.W.2d 95 (1964); State v. Barnes, 81 S.D. 511, 137 N.W.2d 683 (1965); State ex rel.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • United States ex rel. Miner v. Erickson, No. 19977.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • June 5, 1970
    ...all Indian title to the land. The South Dakota Supreme Court has relied upon La Plant in a similar holding. Lafferty v. State, 80 S.D. 411, 125 N.W.2d 171 The difficulty with reliance upon the La Plant case is the expressed overruling of the case by this court some 46 years later. See Putna......
  • U.S. v. Dupris, No. 78-1575
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • November 27, 1979
    ...jurisdiction in the opened area on nonallotted land. See, e. g., United States v. La Plant, 200 F. 92 (D.S.D.1911); Lafferty v. State, 80 S.D. 411, 125 N.W.2d 171 (1963); State v. Sauter, 48 S.D. 409, 205 N.W. 25 (1925). At trial Mr. Aberle, the present States Attorney for Dewey County, Sou......
  • State v. Perank, No. 860243
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • July 17, 1992
    ...478 F.2d 684 (8th Cir.1973); Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. Herbst, 334 F.Supp. 1001, 1005 (D.Minn.1971); Lafferty v. State, 80 S.D. 411, 125 N.W.2d 171, 174 On the basis of the above, we conclude that operative statutory language that restores reservation land to the public domain ......
  • Beardslee v. United States, No. 18565.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • December 21, 1967
    ...v. De Marrias, 79 S.D. 1, 107 N.W.2d 255 (1961), cert. denied 368 U.S. 844, 82 S.Ct. 72, 7 L.Ed.2d 42; Lafferty v. State ex rel. Jameson, 80 S.D. 411, 125 N.W.2d 171 (1963); Wood v. Jameson, 81 S.D. 12, 130 N.W.2d 95 (1964); State v. Barnes, 81 S.D. 511, 137 N.W.2d 683 (1965); State ex rel.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT