State v. Molash, No. 10959

CourtSupreme Court of South Dakota
Writing for the CourtDOYLE; BIEGELMEIER; WOLLMAN; DOYLE
Citation199 N.W.2d 591,86 S.D. 558
PartiesSTATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Joe MOLASH, Defendant and Respondent.
Decision Date19 July 1972
Docket NumberNo. 10959

Page 591

199 N.W.2d 591
86 S.D. 558
STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
Joe MOLASH, Defendant and Respondent.
No. 10959.
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
July 19, 1972.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 6, 1972.

[86 S.D. 559] Gordon Mydland, Atty. Gen., Walter W. Andre, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, Robert L. Tschetter, State's Atty., McIntosh, for plaintiff and appellant.

Page 592

Curtis W. Hanks, Lemmon, Marvin J. Sonosky, Washington, D.C., for defendant and respondent.

DOYLE, Judge.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff, State of South Dakota, from an order of the Circuit Court for the Eighth Judicial Circuit granting defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The defendant Joe Molash, a member of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, was charged with the commission of the crime of forgery on deeded or fee land in the City of McLaughlin, Corson County, South Dakota. The defendant's motion to dismiss alleged the state to be without jurisdiction, in that the offense by an Indian took place in Indian country. The trial court granted the motion holding the state to be without authority to prosecute the defendant, as the City of McLaughlin, Corson County, South Dakota, is a part of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation and, as such, beyond the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of South Dakota. We affirm.

[86 S.D. 560] This opinion requires a brief review of the history of the Standing Rock Reservation. By the treaty of April 29, 1868, 15 Stat. 635, the land west of the Missouri River in South Dakota and a small part of North Dakota was set aside as the Great Sioux Reservation for the Sioux Nation. In 1877 the United States acquired a portion thereof and established the acquired land as a part of the public domain. Act of February 28, 1877, Ch. 72, 19 Stat. 254. Six reservations were then created from the remaining Great Sioux Nation, one of which was the Standing Rock Reservation wherein the alleged offense in this action occurred. Act of March 2, 1889, 25 Stat. 888. During the years 1904 through 1913 Congress enacted a series of statutes relating to the tribal lands in five of the six reservations. The Act of February 14, 1913, Ch. 54, 37 Stat. 675 (Act of 1913), dealt with that part of the reservation embracing McLaughlin, South Dakota, the situs of the alleged offense in this case.

Congress in the Act of 1913 in summary provided: (1) For allotments to each Indian who had not been previously allotted, (2) For withholding lands for agency Indian schools and various religious institutions, (3) For the grant of sections 16 and 36 in each township to the state for school purposes or providing lieu lands in the event these sections had been previously allotted, and (4) For the remaining 'surplus' lands to be sold under the Homestead and Townsite laws for not less than the price fixed in the Act.

The Act further provided the sale price was to be held in trust by the United States and the proceeds credited to the trust account of the tribe. Section 10 of the Act spelled out that the United States was not bound to purchase any land or to find purchasers therefor (except school lands heretofore referred to), and also stated:

'Provided, That nothing in this Act shall be construed to deprive the said Indians of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation of any benefits to which they are entitled under existing treaties or agreements not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.'

[86 S.D. 561] Once Congress has established a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. State of SD, Civ. No. 86-3019.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. District of South Dakota
    • March 31, 1989
    ...in South Dakota is exclusively vested in the Federal and Tribal courts. 709 F. Supp. 1507 Id. 152 N.W.2d at 548. See also State v. Molash, 86 S.D. 558, 199 N.W.2d 591, 593 (1972); State v. Hero, 282 N.W.2d 70, 72 (S.D.1979) (South Dakota is not a Public Law 280 state). In addition, even the......
  • State v. Janis, No. 13237
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • March 10, 1982
    ...as to admit of only one conclusion in any given factual and historical situation. For example, would our decision in State v. Molash, 86 S.D. 558, 199 N.W.2d 591 (1972), be the same if the case were presented today? See State v. White Horse, 89 S.D. 196, 231 N.W.2d 847 1 "Termination," "dim......
  • Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. State of S.D., Nos. 89-5227
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • June 8, 1990
    ...decision, and judicial decisions reflected the state's lack of jurisdiction over Indians on Indian land. See, e.g., State v. Molash, 86 S.D. 558, 199 N.W.2d 591 (1972); Smith v. Temple, 82 S.D. 650, 152 N.W.2d 547 In 1968 Congress amended P.L. 280 to require tribal consent prior to any assu......
  • Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, No. Civ. 72-3030.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota
    • February 6, 1974
    ...(8th Cir. 1973); United States ex rel. Feather v. Erickson, 489 F.2d 99 (8th Cir., filed Dec. 7, 1973); State of South Dakota v. Molash, 199 N.W.2d 591 (S.D.1972); State of South Dakota v. Williamson, 211 N. W.2d 182 (S.D.1973). It is conceded that a declaratory judgment is an appropriate r......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. State of SD, Civ. No. 86-3019.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. District of South Dakota
    • March 31, 1989
    ...in South Dakota is exclusively vested in the Federal and Tribal courts. 709 F. Supp. 1507 Id. 152 N.W.2d at 548. See also State v. Molash, 86 S.D. 558, 199 N.W.2d 591, 593 (1972); State v. Hero, 282 N.W.2d 70, 72 (S.D.1979) (South Dakota is not a Public Law 280 state). In addition, even the......
  • State v. Janis, No. 13237
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • March 10, 1982
    ...as to admit of only one conclusion in any given factual and historical situation. For example, would our decision in State v. Molash, 86 S.D. 558, 199 N.W.2d 591 (1972), be the same if the case were presented today? See State v. White Horse, 89 S.D. 196, 231 N.W.2d 847 1 "Termination,&......
  • Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. State of S.D., Nos. 89-5227
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • June 8, 1990
    ...decision, and judicial decisions reflected the state's lack of jurisdiction over Indians on Indian land. See, e.g., State v. Molash, 86 S.D. 558, 199 N.W.2d 591 (1972); Smith v. Temple, 82 S.D. 650, 152 N.W.2d 547 In 1968 Congress amended P.L. 280 to require tribal consent prior to any assu......
  • Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, No. Civ. 72-3030.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota
    • February 6, 1974
    ...(8th Cir. 1973); United States ex rel. Feather v. Erickson, 489 F.2d 99 (8th Cir., filed Dec. 7, 1973); State of South Dakota v. Molash, 199 N.W.2d 591 (S.D.1972); State of South Dakota v. Williamson, 211 N. W.2d 182 (S.D.1973). It is conceded that a declaratory judgment is an appropriate r......
  • 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