State v. Kuntz, No. C

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
• Writing for the Court: MORRIS
• Citation: 66 N.W.2d 531
• Parties: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James KUNTZ, Defendant and Appellant. r. 257.
• Docket Number: No. C
• Decision Date: 29 October 1954

Page 531

66 N.W.2d 531 STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
James KUNTZ, Defendant and Appellant. No. Cr. 257. Supreme Court of North Dakota. Oct. 29, 1954.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. State courts generally have jurisdiction over offenses committed on Indian reservations by persons who are not Indians against other persons who are not Indians.

2. One who is half of Indian blood, is a member of an Indian tribe, lives on the tribal reservation, and is treated as an Indian by the Indian Department of the United States Government is an Indian.

3. The courts of the State of North Dakota do not have jurisdiction over crimes committed on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation by one who is not an Indian against one who is an Indian.

Robert Vogel, State's Atty., and Paul W. Buehler, Asst. State's Atty., Garrison, for plaintiff and respondent.

J. K. Murray, Bismarck, for defendant and appellant.

MORRIS, Chief Justice.

This is a criminal action in which the state charged that the defendant, James Kuntz, on or about the twentieth day of March 1953, in McLean County, North Dakota, 'did commit the crime of Unlawful Killing of Livestock, committed in the manner following, to-wit: That at the same time and place the said defendant did then and there wilfully and unlawfully and wrongfully and intentionally kill or cause to be killed one Heifer Calf, the property of Ambrose Hosie.' The defendant pleaded not guilty. The jury rendered a verdict of guilty, upon which the court, on December 3, 1953, rendered judgment sentencing the defendant to be imprisoned in the state penitentiary not less than two nor more than five years.

The defendant moved for arrest of judgment and for a new trial. Both motions were denied. The defendant has appealed from both the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial. Under both appeals he challenges the jurisdiction of the convicting court upon the ground that the crime was committed upon the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation against the property of an Indian who was then residing and operating a ranch on the reservation.

Page 532

There is no dispute as to the time and place of the commission of the offense by the defendant, who is a white man. There is a dispute as to whether Ambrose Hosie is an Indian and as to whether he owned the animal that was killed. Before considering further these differences of fact between the state and the defendant, we will turn to the law applicable to the jurisdiction of state courts in such cases.

In Williams v. United States, 327 U.S. 711, 66 S.Ct. 778, 780, 90 L.Ed. 962, we find this statement:

'While the laws and courts of the State of Arizona may have jurisdiction over offenses committed on this reservation between persons who are not Indians, the laws and courts of the United States, rather than those of Arizona, have jurisdiction over offenses committed there, as in this case, by one who is not an Indian against one who is an Indian.'

The statement of the law above quoted from Williams v. United States is applicable to the jurisdiction of state courts over offenses committed on the Fort Berthold Reservation in North Dakota by persons belonging to the classes mentioned.

The courts of the State of North Dakota do not have jurisdiction over crimes committed on the...