People of State of New York Ray v. Martin, No. 158

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBLACK
Citation90 L.Ed. 261,66 S.Ct. 307,326 U.S. 496
Docket NumberNo. 158
Decision Date07 January 1946
PartiesPEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. RAY v. MARTIN, Warden of Attica State Prison, Attica, N.Y

326 U.S. 496
66 S.Ct. 307
90 L.Ed. 261
PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. RAY

v.

MARTIN, Warden of Attica State Prison, Attica, N.Y.

No. 158.
Argued Dec. 13, 1945.
Decided Jan. 7, 1946.

Page 497

Mr. Thomas J. McKenna, of Buffalo, N.Y., for petitioner.

Mr. Henry S. Manley, of Albany, N.Y., for respondents, Martin, Warden, and State of New York.

Mr. Charles E. Congdon, of Salamanca, N.Y., for respondent, Cattaraugus County, N.Y.

Mr. Roger P. Marquis, of Washington, D.C., for The United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.

Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

In United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 26 L.Ed. 869, this Court held that the State courts of Colorado, not the Federal courts, had jurisdiction to prosecute a murder of one non-Indian by another, committed on an Indian reservation located within that State. The holding in that case was that the Act of Congress, 18 Stat. 474, admitting Colorado into the union overruled all prior inconsistent statutes and treaties and placed it 'on an equal footing with the original States * * *'; that this meant that Colorado had 'criminal jurisd ction over its own citizens and other white persons throughout the whole of the territory within its limits, including the Ute Reservation'; and that consequently,

Page 498

the United States no longer had 'sole and exclusive jurisdiction' over the Reservation, except to the extent necessary to carry out such treaty provisions which remained in force. That case has since been followed by this Court1 and its holding has not been modified by any act of Congress. The question this case presents is whether New York, which is one of the original States, has jurisdiction to punish a murder of one non-Indian committed by another non-Indian upon the Alleghany Reservation of the Seneca Indians located within the State of New York.

In 1939, the petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment in a New York State court for the murder of a man in the City of Salamanca, which is within the Alleghany Reservation but has only 8 Indian families living among its 9,000 inhabitants. He later brought this habeas corpus proceeding in a county court of the State.2 He alleged that since the Indian reservation was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, the State courts lacked jurisdiction to try and convict him. The County Court of Wyoming County heard the case and ordered the writ dismissed. 181 Misc. 925, 47 N.Y.S.2d 883. Both the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, 268 App.Div. 218, 52 N.Y.S.2d 496, and the Court of Appeals, 294 N.Y. 61, 60 N.E.2d 541, affirmed the dismissal. 3 We granted certiorari because of the federal questions raised.

Page 499

We think the rule announced in the McBratney case controlling and that the New York Court therefore properly exercised its jurisdiction. For that case and others which followed it all held that in the absence of a limiting treaty obligation or Congressional enactment, each state had a right to exercise jurisdiction over Indian reservations within its boundaries.4 Petitioner claims that the McBratney case differs from this proceeding in several respects. First, he contends that Colorado could exercise greater powers over its Indian reservations than New York can, by virtue of the enabling act which admitted Colorado into the union, a similar enactment being lacking here since New York is one of the original states. As we have seen, the Colorado enabling act was held in the McBratney case to put Colorado 'on an equal footing with the original States', and to repeal earlier legislation and treaties inconsistent with the enabling act. The fact that Colorado was put on an equal footing with the original states obviously did not give it any greater power than New York. nd no greater power...

To continue reading

Request your trial
101 practice notes
  • Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe Amoco Production Company v. Jicarilla Apache Indian Tribe, Nos. 80-11
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1981
    ...v. M'Intosh, 8 Wheat. 543, 574 [5 L.Ed. 681] (1823)." 435 U.S., at 209, 98 S.Ct., at 1021. See also New York ex rel. Ray v. Martin, 326 U.S. 496, 499, 66 S.Ct. 307, 308, 90 L.Ed. 261 (state court has jurisdiction to try a non-Indian for a crime committed against a non-Indian on a reservatio......
  • Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • July 30, 1965
    ...the custodian to proceed in the district courts to enforce his rights under the Act, whether they depend on state or federal law." 326 U.S. at 496, 66 S.Ct. at In Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, supra, it was held that the Declaratory Judgments Act, now 28 U.S.C. §§ 2001-2002, was valid and......
  • C'Hair v. Dist. Court of the Ninth Judicial Dist., S-14-0198
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • August 26, 2015
    ...to take account of the State's legitimate interests in regulating the affairs of non-Indians. See, e.g., New York ex rel. Ray v. Martin, 326 U.S. 496, 66 S.Ct. 307, 90 L.Ed. 261 (1946); Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240, 17 S.Ct. 107, 41 L.Ed. 419 (1896); Utah & Northern R. Co. v. Fishe......
  • U.S. v. Prentiss, No. 98-2040
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • February 24, 2000
    ...the crime occurred within Indian country, the crime did not occur between and Indian and a non-Indian); New York ex. rel. Ray v. Martin, 326 U.S. 496, 501(1946) (upholding state court conviction of a non-Indian for murder of a non-Indian within Indian country). 8. The view that crimes betwe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
101 cases
  • Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe Amoco Production Company v. Jicarilla Apache Indian Tribe, Nos. 80-11
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1981
    ...v. M'Intosh, 8 Wheat. 543, 574 [5 L.Ed. 681] (1823)." 435 U.S., at 209, 98 S.Ct., at 1021. See also New York ex rel. Ray v. Martin, 326 U.S. 496, 499, 66 S.Ct. 307, 308, 90 L.Ed. 261 (state court has jurisdiction to try a non-Indian for a crime committed against a non-Indian on a reservatio......
  • Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • July 30, 1965
    ...the custodian to proceed in the district courts to enforce his rights under the Act, whether they depend on state or federal law." 326 U.S. at 496, 66 S.Ct. at In Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, supra, it was held that the Declaratory Judgments Act, now 28 U.S.C. §§ 2001-2002, was valid and......
  • C'Hair v. Dist. Court of the Ninth Judicial Dist., S-14-0198
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • August 26, 2015
    ...to take account of the State's legitimate interests in regulating the affairs of non-Indians. See, e.g., New York ex rel. Ray v. Martin, 326 U.S. 496, 66 S.Ct. 307, 90 L.Ed. 261 (1946); Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240, 17 S.Ct. 107, 41 L.Ed. 419 (1896); Utah & Northern R. Co. v. Fishe......
  • U.S. v. Prentiss, No. 98-2040
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • February 24, 2000
    ...the crime occurred within Indian country, the crime did not occur between and Indian and a non-Indian); New York ex. rel. Ray v. Martin, 326 U.S. 496, 501(1946) (upholding state court conviction of a non-Indian for murder of a non-Indian within Indian country). 8. The view that crimes betwe......
  • 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