State v. Griswold
| Decision Date | 25 January 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 1717,1717 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Francis Hamilton GRISWOLD, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., Gary K. Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Lewis, Roca, Scoville, Beauchamp & Linton, by John J. Flynn, Paul G. Ulrich, Phoenix, for appellant.
Defendant, a sixty-four year old man, upon a plea of guilty, was pronounced guilty of the second degree murder of his wife. A hearing in mitigation of sentence was held. Following the hearing the defendant was sentenced to not less than thirty-six nor more than forty years in the State Prison.
The first claim made by the defendant is that the Superior Court of Apache County was without jurisdiction to try this case for the reason that the alleged crime occurred on an Indian Reservation. The defendant urges this Court to rule that the only Court with jurisdiction to hear this matter is the Federal Court, although both the defendant and the victim were non-Indians.
Section 20(2) of the Enabling Act, A.R.S., 36 Stat. 569 and Art. 20, Para. 4 of the Arizona Constitution provide that the Indian Reservations '* * * shall be, and remain, subject to the disposition and under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States * * *.' The existence of this disclaimer clause might seem to support the contention of the defendant. However, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that when the accused and the victim are both non-Indians the state courts have exclusive jurisdiction to try the case even though the alleged crime occurred on an Indian Reservation. United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 26 L.Ed. 869 (1881). This rule applies unless there is language changing it in the Enabling Act which provided for the admission of Arizona as a state.
The Enabling Act which provided for the admission of Montana into the Union in 1889, stated almost exactly what twenty-one years later was stated in the Arizona Enabling Act and Constitution. After Montana became a state, a crime was committed by one non-Indian against another non-Indian upon an Indian Reservation. Trial was had in the Federal Court. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the provision in the Enabling Act, (similar to the one later adopted by Congress for Arizona) regarding jurisdiction over Indian Reservations, had not changed the rule that states had exclusive jurisdiction over the crimes committed on Indian Reservations involving non-Indians. Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240, 17 S.Ct. 107, 41 L.Ed. 419 (1896). By employing almost the same language interpreted in the Draper case, supra, in the Arizona Enabling Act, we conclude Congress manifested an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Munninger
...non-capital case, but that is not a fact-finding function. Instead it is an exercise of judicial discretion. See State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577, 578, 422 P.2d 693, 694 (1967) (sentencing is a matter of judicial discretion reviewable only for abuse of discretion). ¶ 19 In fact, the very au......
-
State v. Flint
...committed by non-Indians against non-Indians, even though on the reservation. McBratney, 104 U.S. (14 Otto) 621; State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577, 578, 422 P.2d 693, 694 (1967). The rationale for this exception is that such crimes do not involve essential tribal relations or affect the righ......
-
State v. Griswold
...of not less than thirty-six nor more than forty years. From the sentence and conviction he appealed. This court affirmed, State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577, 422 P.2d 693. Two questions were presented for disposition on Griswold's appeal, the first being whether the Superior Court of Apache C......
-
State v. Moore
...... Although the State of Arizona follows the McBratney-Draper- Martin holdings, State v. Attebery, 110 Ariz. 354, 519 P.2d 53 (1974); State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577, 422 P.2d 693, cert. denied, 388 U.S. 913, 87 S.Ct. 2113, 18 L.Ed.2d 1352 (1967), State v. Burrola, 137 Ariz. 181, 669 P.2d 614 (App.1983), they are not directly on point with this case. Here, the defendant is a non-Indian, but the offense to which he pled was not one against a ......