United States v. Martine
| Decision Date | 17 May 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 518-70.,518-70. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Gilbert George MARTINE, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
John B. Speer, Albuquerque, N. M., for appellant.
John A. Babington, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Victor R. Ortega, U. S. Atty., with him on the brief), for appellee.
Before SETH, ADAMS* and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
This is a direct appeal from a conviction of involuntary manslaughter under 18 U.S.C. § 1153. Trial was to a jury in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.
The defendant Martine is a Navajo Indian. On August 21, 1969, the defendant and a companion, Roy Charles, also a Navajo Indian, were drinking together. It clearly appears from the transcript that both became intoxicated, and were seen by several witnesses driving Charles' pickup about the so-called checkerboard area of western New Mexico. The checkerboard area is a patch-work of land, some of which is owned by the Navajo Tribe, some of which is not. It does not lie within the boundaries of any Indian Reservation. Testimony revealed that the two, Martine and Charles, alternated driving the pickup. In the early evening of August 21, a Navajo policeman sought out the two at the request of relatives. Upon sighting Charles' pickup, the officer gave chase. When he finally caught up to the pickup, it had overturned, killing Roy Charles. The officer's testimony indicated that Martine was the driver at the time of the collision. Consequently, Martine was indicted for involuntary manslaughter.
Two questions are raised in this appeal. First, appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. Secondly, appellant challenges jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1151.
As for the first contention, appellant urges that the evidence was insufficient, because there was only circumstantial evidence that Martine was driving at the time of the accident, and circumstantial evidence, if consistent with innocence, is insufficient. While such an argument may have had some force at one time, the present law is to the contrary. Where, as here, the jury is properly instructed on the standards for reasonable doubt, it is not necessary to give an additional instruction on circumstantial evidence. Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S.Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 (1954). Furthermore, essential elements of an offense may quite properly be established solely by circumstantial evidence. Golubin v. United States, 393 F.2d 590 (10th Cir.1968); Wall v. United States, 384 F.2d 758 (10th Cir. 1967). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, it was sufficient to support the verdict.
Appellant's second contention is that the situs of the accident is not "Indian country" as defined by 18 U.S. C. § 1151, and required for jurisdiction to prosecute offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 1153. The term "Indian country" as used in section 1151 includes Indian reservations, dependent Indian communities, and all Indian allotments. The particular place where the accident took place was neither on an Indian reservation nor on an allotment. It was in an area known as the Ramah community and on land owned by the Navajo Tribe, it having been purchased with tribal funds from a corporate owner. Jurisdiction therefore rests on the claim that the area in question is a dependent Indian community. Appellant ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Adcock
...United States v. Francisco, 410 F.2d 1283 (8th Cir.1969); Urban v. United States, 237 F.2d 379 (9th Cir.1956); United States v. Martine, 442 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir.1971); Davis v. United States, 433 F.2d 1222, 1226 at n. 5 We think the language of Judge Learned Hand in United States v. Becker,......
-
Lewis v. Sac and Fox Tribe of Oklahoma Housing Authority
...Supra note 11.67 For the definition of "dependent Indian community", see 18 U.S.C. § 1151(b), supra note 16.68 United States v. Martine, 442 F.2d 1022, 1023 (10th Cir.1971).69 665 F.2d 837 (8th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 823, 103 S.Ct. 52, 74 L.Ed.2d 58 (1982).70 South Dakota, supra ......
-
Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island v. Narragansett Elec. Co.
...and federally dependent." See id. at 77. In that case, we applied the factors set out by the Tenth Circuit in United States v. Martine, 442 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir.1971), namely: part of this century. See United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28, 46, 34 S.Ct. 1, 5, 58 L.Ed. 107 (1913) ("[L]ong co......
-
State v. Ramirez
...no reason to depart from the rule that circumstantial evidence may be used to establish an element of a crime. See United States v. Martine, 442 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir. 1971). The location of the crime, as one element, may be proved by circumstantial evidence. The defendant's confession, toget......
-
A Revisionist History of Indian Country
...Tribe, 11 Ind. Rptr. at 6040 (noting that courts have "not [been] able to agree on a consistent construction of Indian country"). [466] 442 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir. 1971). [467]See id. at 1023. [468] 665 F.2d 837 (8th Cir. 1981). [469]See id. at 839. [470]See Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining Co......
-
CHAPTER 16 POTSHERDS AND PETROGLYPHS: EFFECTS OF CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ON PUBLIC LANDS DEVELOPMENT
...909 F.2d 1387 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1012 (1990), after remand, 1995 WL 231635 (April 19, 1995); United States v. Martine, 442 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir. 1971). [232] 25 U.S.C. § 3002(d) (Supp. III 1991). [233] 25 U.S.C. § 3002(c) (Supp. III 1991). [234] NAGPRA's legislative history ......
-
Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie: Statutory Construction or Judicial Usurpation? Why History Counts
...45-46 (emphasis added). [284]302 U.S. 535 (1938). [285]See id. at 538. [286]See id. at 537-39. [287]Id. at 538-39 (emphasis added). [288] 442 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir. 1971). [289]See id. at 1023. [290]See id. ("The term 'Indian country' as used in section 1151 includes Indian reservations, depe......
-
Indian Country and Inherent Tribal Authority: Will They Survive Ancsa?
...II, 101 F.3d at 1299. [111]Id. [112]Id. at 1299-1300. [113]Id. at 1300. [114]See id. [115] 665 F.2d 837 (8th Cir. 1981). [116] 442 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir. 1971). [117]See Venetie II, 101 F.3d at 1300. [118]Id. at 1294. The court applied the six-part test originally adopted in Venetie I. See Al......