State v. Warner
Decision Date | 19 February 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 7180,7180 |
Citation | 1963 NMSC 34,71 N.M. 418,379 P.2d 66 |
Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alvin K. WARNER, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
W. R. Kegel, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellant.
John Quinn, U. S. Atty., John A. Babington, Asst. U. S. Atty., Albuquerque, amicus curiae.
Baggett & Baggett, Farmington, for appellee.
Defendant, who is not an Indian, was charged with driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquors. Based upon a stipulation that the alleged criminal offense occurred within the boundaries of the Navajo Indian Reservation, the trial court dismissed the criminal complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The state has appealed. The single question presented is whether the State of New Mexico has jurisdiction to arrest and try a non-Indian for a criminal offense occurring within an Indian reservation, where no Indian or Indian property is involved.
The trial court was undoubtedly influenced by what it may have considered controlling language in State v. Begay, 63 N.M. 409, 320 P.2d 1017, holding that the New Mexico exclusionary clause, art. XXI, Sec. 2, New Mexico Constitution, denies the state and its courts all jurisdiction over Indian lands unless and until the title of the Indian and Indian tribes has been extinguished thereto.
Similar exclusionary clauses, however, were construed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U.S. 60, 82 S.Ct. 562, 7 L.Ed.2d 573, decided March 5, 1962, as not excluding the state from all jurisdiction to such lands. The court there construed such an exclusionary clause thus:
'The disclaimer of right and title by the State was a disclaimer of proprietary rather than governmental interest.'
State v. Begay, supra, holds that an easement over Indian lands granted to the state for highway purposes does not extinguish the Indian title, and that the state lacks jurisdiction to try an Indian for a criminal offense committed on Indian reservation lands. To that extent we reaffirm the principles of Begay. The language of Begay, denying the state any governmental power over Indians or Indian lands until the title of the Indian or Indian tribes shall have been extinguished, was in effect modified by Your Food Stores, Inc. (NSL) v. Village of Espanola, 68 N.M. 327, 361 P.2d 950, to mean that the state lacks jurisdiction within the boundaries of an Indian reservation, 'except where such jurisdiction has been specifically granted by Act of Congress, or sanctioned by decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.' It was pointed out in Montoya v. Bolack, 70 N.M. 196, 372 P.2d 387, that Begay need not have been decided on the 'exclusive jurisdiction' basis, because it involved the trial of an Indian for an offense committed on the reservation. In Montoya, we further said: 'There is not and never has been what might be termed 'exclusive federal authority" over Indian lands, merely because the lands are within an Indian reservation. Thus, to the extent that State v. Begay, supra, conflicts with Your Food Stores, Inc. (NSL) v. Village of Espanola, supra, and Montoya v. Bolack, supra, it is expressly overruled.
The extent to which a state may exercise its criminal jurisdiction within the boundaries of an Indian reservation lying within the state was clearly expressed by Mr. Justice Black, speaking for the United States Supreme Court, in Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 79 S.Ct. 269, 3 L.Ed.2d 251. After pointing out that the constitutionality of state statutes seeking to impose state laws and courts on Indians were tested in Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 31 U.S. 515, 8 L.Ed. 483 and Georgia's assertion of power over Indians held to be invalid, Williams reviewed the history of state jurisdiction over Indian lands as announced by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court subsequent to Worcester, by which the effect of that decision had been somewhat modified from time to time. Williams v. Lee, supra, appears to us to clearly explain the extent of state jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed on Indian reservation lands, and the limits beyond which the state lacks jurisdiction. It was there said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Board of County Com'rs, County of Rio Arriba, 12098
...18 U.S.C. § 1162 (1988); 28 U.S.C. § 1360. New Mexico has not accepted Public Law 280's offer of jurisdiction. See State v. Warner, 71 N.M. 418, 422, 379 P.2d 66, 69 (1963). See generally Canby, American Indian Law, supra, at 192; Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law, supra, at Public Law......
-
State v. Cutnose
...specifically granted by Act of Congress, or sanctioned by decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.' Id. In State v. Warner, 71 N.M. 418, 379 P.2d 66 (1963), the Court followed Williams v. Lee, supra, and Your Food Stores, supra, and added that the State does have criminal jurisd......
-
Sangre de Cristo Development Corp., Inc. v. City of Santa Fe, 9441
...573 (1962); Paiz v. Hughes, 76 N.M. 562, 417 P.2d 51 (1966); Batchelor v. Charley, 74 N.M. 717, 398 P.2d 49 (1965); State v. Warner, 71 N.M. 418, 379 P.2d 66 (1963); Montoya v. Bolack, supra; Ghahate v. Bureau of Revenue, 80 N.M. 98, 451 P.2d 1002 (Ct.App.1969). See also County of Beltrami ......
-
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta
...227, 228, 756 P.2d 324, 324-325 (App. 1988); State v. Greenwalt, 204 Mont. 196, 204-205, 663 P.2d 1178, 1182-1183 (1983); State v. Warner, 71 N.M. 418, 421-422, 379 P.2d 66, 68-69 (1963); State v. Kuntz, 66 N.W.2d 531, 532 (N. D. 1954); State v. Jackson, 218 Minn. 429, 430, 16 N.W.2d 752, 7......