People v. Collins

• Decision Date: 23 October 2012
• Docket Number: Docket Nos. 300644,300645.
• Citation: 826 N.W.2d 175,298 Mich.App. 166
• Parties: PEOPLE v. COLLINS. People v. Mason.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

298 Mich.App. 166

826 N.W.2d 175

PEOPLE

v.COLLINS.

People

v.Mason.

Docket Nos. 300644, 300645.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Oct. 9, 2012, at Petoskey.

Decided Oct. 23, 2012, at 9:00 a.m.

Bill Schuette, Attorney General, John J. Bursch, Solicitor General, Richard A. Bandstra, Chief Legal Counsel, and Louis B. Reinwasser, Assistant Attorney General, for the people.

Wayne Erickson, Menominee, for Stormy D. Collins and Rodney F. Mason.

Dawn S. Duncan for Amicus Curiae the Hannahville Indian Community.

Before: MURPHY, C.J., and SAWYER and HOEKSTRA, JJ.

MURPHY, C.J.

In these consolidated appeals defendant, Stormy Dean Collins, was charged with delivery of a controlled substance, methylphenidate (Ritalin), MCL 333.7401(2)(b)( ii ) (Docket No. 300644), and defendant, Rodney Farrell Mason, was charged with possession with intent to deliver less than 5 kilograms of marijuana or fewer than 20 marijuana plants, MCL 333.7401(2)(d)( iii ) (Docket No. 300645). With respect to both defendants, the alleged offenses occurred inside an Indian ¹ casino, and there is no dispute that neither defendant is of Indian heritage. Although the district court denied motions by defendants to have the felony charges dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction, the circuit court, following bindover, granted their renewed motions for dismissal that challenged the court's jurisdiction over the criminal proceedings. The circuit court ruled that Michigan state courts lack jurisdiction over offenses committed by non-Indians that take place on Indian lands situated within the state's boundaries. The circuit court concluded that in such situations federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. On the basis of opinions issued by the United States Supreme Court, which constitute binding precedent, along with persuasive precedent emanating from numerous state and lower federal courts, we hold that state courts in Michigan have jurisdiction relative to a criminal prosecution in which a non-Indian defendant committed a “victimless” ² offense on Indian lands or in Indian country. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for reinstatement of the charges against defendants.

Pursuant to a compact between the Hannahville Indian Community (the “tribe”) and the state of Michigan (the “state”) executed on August 20, 1993, and approved by the United States Department of the Interior on November 19, 1993, and under the authority of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., the tribe operates class III gaming activities on Indian lands at its Island Resort and Casino (the “casino”). See 58 Fed Reg 228 (November 30, 1993) (publishing notice of the federal government's approval of the compact between Michigan and the Hannahville Indian Community for the purpose of engaging in class III gaming); 25 U.S.C. § 2703(8) (defining “class III gaming”).With respect to defendant Collins, the prosecution had alleged that on July 2, 2009, as captured by video surveillance, Collins was in the casino, he pulled a pill bottle from his pocket, and he then could be seen handing something to another individual in exchange for money. The video was played at Collins's preliminary examination. At the hearing, Matthew Karaja, a police officer with the Hannahville Tribal Police Department, testified that he had been contacted by the casino's surveillance operator about the suspicious transaction involving Collins. Officer Karaja reviewed the video himself and decided to question Collins, who was still inside the casino. Collins informed Karaja that the pill bottle contained Ritalin that was prescribed for his daughter. On request, Collins gave the pill bottle to Karaja, which indicated on its label that it was a prescription for 60 20–milligram pills of Ritalin; 31 pills remained in the bottle and the prescription had just been filled that day. Collins told Karaja that the other person in the video seen making the purchase gave Collins $50 in exchange for 4 pills.

The preliminary examination for defendant Collins was continued to a later date, during which time Collins's attorney filed a motion to dismiss. Defendant Collins maintained that the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the criminal charge, given that the alleged offense occurred in an Indian casino, which was outside a state court's territorial jurisdiction. Collins's defense counsel, who also represented defendant Mason, subsequently filed a motion to dismiss in Mason's case, once again arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the criminal proceedings. With respect to defendant Mason, the prosecution had alleged that on December 15, 2009, he was in the casino when police officers searched him and found approximately 3.88 ounces of marijuana in a front pocket of his pants. According to a lower court brief filed by defense counsel, Mason was caught in a sting operation set up by the county sheriff's department in which Mason was coaxed into going to the casino and purchasing marijuana from a cousin. He was immediately arrested in the casino after the transaction was completed.

At the subsequent hearing on Collins's previously adjourned preliminary examination, the district court also entertained the two motions to dismiss. The district court denied the motions and then found that there was sufficient evidence to bind Collins over to the circuit court on the felony drug charge involving the Ritalin. With respect to the motions to dismiss, the district court first noted that if an Indian commits a serious offense on tribal property, the federal government would have jurisdiction and that if the crime is not serious, the tribal court would have jurisdiction. The district court then ruled that state courts have jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants who commit offenses on tribal property, which was the situation in both cases before the court.

At a later date, defendant Mason waived his right to a preliminary examination and was bound over to the circuit court on the felony drug charge involving marijuana. In the circuit court, defense counsel filed new motions to dismiss on behalf of both defendants, once again arguing that a state court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the charges. The circuit court issued a written opinion, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissing all charges. The circuit court first commented that tribal courts lack jurisdiction relative to a prosecution against non-Indians and that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction with respect to crimes committed on Indian lands by non-Indians against Indians. The circuit court then ruled:

In conclusion, this Court can find no authority that gives the State Court jurisdiction for this matter. Since the Tribal Courts clearly do not have jurisdiction either, it would necessarily follow that the Federal Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over these criminal prosecutions. It appears the Federal Government has never chosen to share its jurisdiction over these matters with the State of Michigan. Defendants' Motions for Dismissal are, therefore, granted.

The prosecution appeals as of right.

Questions regarding the exercise of territorial jurisdiction by a state court in a criminal prosecution are reviewed de novo on appeal. See People v. Gayheart, 285 Mich.App. 202, 207, 776 N.W.2d 330 (2009).

“The various courts and persons of this state now having jurisdiction and powers over criminal causes, shall have such jurisdiction and powers as are now conferred upon them by law, except as such jurisdiction and powers may be hereinafter repealed, enlarged or modified.” MCL 762.1. Through the enactment of 2002 PA 129, the Michigan Legislature specifically provided that “[a] person may be prosecuted for a criminal offense he or she commits while he or she is physically located within this state or outside of this state if [certain enumerated] circumstances exist.” MCL 762.2( i ). In general, pursuant to MCL 762.2, “Michigan ... has statutory territorial jurisdiction ‘over any crime where any act constituting an element of the crime is committed within Michigan.’ ” Gayheart, 285 Mich.App. at 209–210, 776 N.W.2d 330, quoting People v. King, 271 Mich.App. 235, 243, 721 N.W.2d 271 (2006). Here, the issue of territorial jurisdiction arises because, although defendants are charged with offenses allegedly committed by them while they were “physically located within the state,” the offenses are said to have taken place on Indian lands, i.e., at the tribe's casino. There is no dispute that the casino is located on Indian lands or in Indian country. See 25 U.S.C. § 2703(4) (defining the phrase Indian lands); 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (defining the phrase Indian country).

In Oneida Co. v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 470 U.S. 226, 234–235, 105 S.Ct. 1245, 84 L.Ed.2d 169 (1985), the United States Supreme Court observed that “[w]ith the adoption of the Constitution, Indian relations became the exclusive province of federal law.” ³ Tribal sovereignty has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court since at least 1832; however, tribal sovereignty, which has a unique and limited character, can be restricted by Congress and “ ‘exists only at the sufferance of Congress and is subject to complete defeasance.’ ” Taxpayers of Mich. Against Casinos v. Michigan, 471 Mich. 306, 319, 685 N.W.2d 221 (2004) (citation omitted).

With respect to jurisdictional issues in connection with crimes occurring in Indian country, jurisdiction “is governed by a complex patchwork of federal, state, and tribal law.” Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676, 680 n. 1, 110 S.Ct. 2053, 109 L.Ed.2d 693 (1990), superseded by statute on other grounds in 25 U.S.C. § 1301(2) (stating that an Indian tribe has the inherent power to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians). In the case at bar, we are presented with non-Indian defendants who allegedly committed “victimless” criminal offenses on Indian lands. “Criminal trial and punishment is so serious...