State ex rel. Hollow Horn Bear v. Jameson, No. 9685

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSMITH
Citation77 S.D. 527,95 N.W.2d 181
PartiesSTATE of South Dakota ex rel. Raymond Edward HOLLOW HORN BEAR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. G. Norton JAMESON, Warden, South Dakota Penitentiary, Defendant and Respondent.
Decision Date03 March 1959
Docket NumberNo. 9685

Page 181

95 N.W.2d 181
77 S.D. 527
STATE of South Dakota ex rel. Raymond Edward HOLLOW HORN
BEAR, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
G. Norton JAMESON, Warden, South Dakota Penitentiary,
Defendant and Respondent.
No. 9685.
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
March 3, 1959.

[77 S.D. 527] Harold Benedict, Colman, for plaintiff and appellant.

Phil W. Saunders, Atty. Gen., George W. Wuest, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant and respondent.

SMITH, Judge.

In this habeas corpus proceeding the applicant for the writ, an enrolled tribal member of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, questions the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Bennett County, South Dakota, which in 1955 convicted him of the crime of forgery in the third degree. He asserts that the state court was without jurisdiction because the offense was committed within 'Indian country' as defined by 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1151. The court below[77 S.D. 528] held the locus of the offense was not within Indian country and entered its order remanding the applicant to the custody of the warden of the penitentiary of South Dakota. The applicant has appealed.

By 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1152 the general laws of the United States as to the punishment of crimes are extended to 'Indian country' and that term is defined by Sec. 1151 of that Title. So far as pertinent to the contention of the applicant, that definition reads as follows: '* * * the term 'Indian country', as used in this chapter, means (a) all land within the limits of any Indian

Page 182

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) * * * (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.'

The briefs of counsel lead us to believe there was a conflict in the evidence as to the exact locus of the offense. The brief of the applicant asserts the crime was committed on the right-of-way adjacent to what is known as the 'Coop Station' at the intersection of U. S. 18 and U. S. 73 at the south limits of the city of Martin, South Dakota. The warden insists the offense was committed at the Coop Station on deeded land. As required by SDC 37.5504 the trial court proceeded in a summary way to settle the facts by hearing the evidence, and incorporated in its order findings which support the position of the warden. A transcript of the testimony is not included in the settled record. Therefore we are unable to pass on the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of the court. Hence our review must proceed in the light of the court's findings. Because the record does include a patent dated in November of 1923 describing the property upon which the Coop Station is located, we assume that it is the patent to which the findings make reference. It is dated in 1923 and contains these words: 'Whereas, an Order of the Secretary of the Interior has been deposited in the General Land Office, directing that a fee simple patent issue to the claimant Daniel W. Coffey, assignee of Thomas A. Coffey, Senior, [77 S.D. 529] purchaser of land included in the allotment of Black Tract, * * *.'

The central contention of the applicant is that because the crime was committed within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Reservation, it was committed within Indian country. He concludes, therefore, that jurisdiction was in the trial court of that reservation.

In making this contention , we do not understand the applicant to question the settled doctrine that the state has jurisdiction to prosecute Indians for such a crime as is here involved when committed outside Indian country. That power stems from the admission of our state to the Union upon an equal footing with the original states. Cf. Sec. 8, Ch. 180, Act of February 22, 1889, 25 Stat. page 676 at 679. Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240, 17 S.Ct. 107, 41 L.Ed. 419; Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504, 16 S.Ct. 1076, 41 L.Ed. 244; 42 C.J.S. Indians Sec. 79(2), p. 798; and 27 Am.Jur., Indians, Sec. .52, p. 575. It was in recognition of this power of the state that we upheld the jurisdiction of our courts to prosecute one of the ten major crimes committed by an Indian at a place held to be outside of a reservation in Ex parte Moore, 28 S.D. 339, 133 N.W. 817; Stat v. Sauter, 48 S.D. 409, 205 N.W. 25; and Application of DeMarrias, S.D., 91 N.W.2d 480.

The Coop Station in Martin, South Dakota, is located within the original exterior boundaries of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation as marked out by the Act of April 30, 1888, Ch. 206, 25 Stat. 94. In the exercise of its plenary power over the Indian tribes (Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 23 S.Ct. 216, 47 L.Ed. 299; Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665, 32 S.Ct. 565, 56 L.Ed. 941; and Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States, Ct.Cl., 146 F.Supp. 229) the Congress on May 27, 1910, enacted Ch. 257 of 36 Stat. 440, the pertinent language whereof reads as follows: 'That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed, as hereinafter provided, to sell and dispose of all that portion of the Pine Ridge Indian...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • US ex rel. Cook v. Parkinson, No. CIV. 74-4023.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota
    • 21 Abril 1975
    ...in this case the South Dakota Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier rulings in State of South Dakota ex rel. Hollow Horn Bear v. Jameson, 77 S.D. 527, 95 N.W.2d 181 (1959), and State of South Dakota ex rel. Swift v. Erickson, 82 S.D. 60, 141 N.W.2d 1 (1966), that the Act of May 27, 1910, &qu......
  • Beardslee v. United States, No. 18565.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 21 Diciembre 1967
    ...S.D. 409, 205 N.W. 25, 28 (1925); Application of De Marrias, 77 S.D. 294, 91 N.W.2d 480 (1958); State ex rel. Hollow Horn Bear v. Jameson, 77 S.D. 527, 95 N.W.2d 181 (1959); State 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......
  • General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River System, In re, Nos. 85-203
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 24 Febrero 1988
    ...quoting United States v. La Plant, supra, 200 F. at 94. This court also quoted favorably from State ex rel. Hollow Horn Bear v. Jameson, 77 S.D. 527, 95 N.W.2d 181 (1959), which had construed an act "parallel" to the Act of March 3, 1905, relying on United States v. Pelican, 232 U......
  • In re Rights to Use Water in Big Horn River, No. 85-203 to 85-205
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 24 Febrero 1988
    ...quoting United States v. La Plant, supra, 200 F. at 94. This court also quoted favorably from State ex rel. Hollow Horn Bear v. Jameson, 77 S.D. 527, 95 N.W.2d 181 (1959), which had construed an act "parallel" to the Act of March 3, 1905, relying on United States v. Pelican, 232 U......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • US ex rel. Cook v. Parkinson, No. CIV. 74-4023.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota
    • 21 Abril 1975
    ...in this case the South Dakota Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier rulings in State of South Dakota ex rel. Hollow Horn Bear v. Jameson, 77 S.D. 527, 95 N.W.2d 181 (1959), and State of South Dakota ex rel. Swift v. Erickson, 82 S.D. 60, 141 N.W.2d 1 (1966), that the Act of May 27, 1910, "wa......
  • General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River System, In re, Nos. 85-203
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 24 Febrero 1988
    ...quoting United States v. La Plant, supra, 200 F. at 94. This court also quoted favorably from State ex rel. Hollow Horn Bear v. Jameson, 77 S.D. 527, 95 N.W.2d 181 (1959), which had construed an act "parallel" to the Act of March 3, 1905, relying on United States v. Pelican, 232 U.S. 442, 3......
  • In re Rights to Use Water in Big Horn River, No. 85-203 to 85-205
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 24 Febrero 1988
    ...quoting United States v. La Plant, supra, 200 F. at 94. This court also quoted favorably from State ex rel. Hollow Horn Bear v. Jameson, 77 S.D. 527, 95 N.W.2d 181 (1959), which had construed an act "parallel" to the Act of March 3, 1905, relying on United States v. Pelican, 232 U.S. 442, 3......
  • Beardslee v. United States, No. 18565.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 21 Diciembre 1967
    ...S.D. 409, 205 N.W. 25, 28 (1925); Application of De Marrias, 77 S.D. 294, 91 N.W.2d 480 (1958); State ex rel. Hollow Horn Bear v. Jameson, 77 S.D. 527, 95 N.W.2d 181 (1959); State 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......
  • 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