United States v. McBratney
| Decision Date | 01 October 1881 |
| Citation | 104 U.S. 621,26 L.Ed. 869 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. MCBRATNEY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
CERTIFICATE of division of opinion from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
The Solicitor-General for the United States.
Mr. Thomas G. Putnam, contra.
The defendant, having been indicted and convicted, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado, of the murder of Thomas Casey, within the boundaries of the Ute Reservation in that district, moved in arrest of judgment for want of jurisdiction of the court. The indictment does not allege that either the accused or the deceased was an Indian. The certificate of division, upon which the case has been brought to this court, states that at the trial it appeared that both were white men, and that the murder was committed in the district of Colorado, within the Ute Reservation, the said Ute Reservation lying wholly within the exterior limits of the State of Colorado; and that, upon the motion in arrest of judgment coming on to be heard before Mr. Justice Miller and Judge Hallett, their opinions were opposed upon this u estion: 'Whether the Circuit Court of the United States sitting in and for the district of Colorado has jurisdiction of the crime of murder, committed by a white man upon a white man, within the Ute Reservation in said district, and within the geographical limits of the State of Colorado.'
The Circuit Courts of the United States have jurisdiction of the crime of murder committed in any 'place or district of country under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States;' and, except where special provision is made, 'the general laws of the United States as to the punishment of crimes committed in any place within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, except the District of Columbia, shall extend to the Indian country.' Rev. Stat., sect. 629, cl. 20, sect. 2145, sect. 5339, cl. 1.
By the second article of the treaty between the United States and the Ute Indians, of March 2, 1868, the United States agreed that a certain district of country therein described should be set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation of the Indians therein named, and of such other friendly tribes or individual Indians as from time to time they might be willing, with the consent of the United States, to admit among them; and that no persons, except those therein authorized so to do, and except such officers, agents, and employees of the government as might be authorized to enter upon Indian reservations in discharge of duties enjoined by law, should ever be permitted to pass over, settle upon, or reside in the territory so described, except as otherwise provided in the treaty. The sixth article provided that, 'if bad men among the whites or among other people, subject to the authority of the United States, shall commit any wrong upon the person or property of the Indians,' the United States, upon proof made to the agent, and forwarded to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, would proceed at once to cause the offender to be arrested and punished according to the laws of the United States, and 'if bad men among the Indians shall commit a wrong or depredation upon the person or property of any one, white, black, or Indian, subject to the authority of the United States and at peace therewith, the tribes herein named solemnly agree that they will, on proof made to their agent, and notice to him, deliver up the wrong-doer to the United States, to be tried and punished according to its laws.' By the seventh article, 'the President may at any time order a survey of the reservation, and, when so surveyed, Congress shall provide for protecting the rights of such Indian settlers in their improvements, and may fix the character of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zemina v. Solem
...court has thus far rendered a perfectly correct interpretation of the federal law. See 18 U.S.C.A. section 1153; United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 26 L.Ed. 869 (1881); S.D.C.L. section 23-9-8 6 See, e. g., Federal Land Bank of Omaha v. Le Mars Mutual Insurance Co. of Sioux Falls, 65......
-
People v. Carmen
...seq., 66 S.Ct. 307, 90 L.Ed. 261; Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240, 242 et seq., 17 S.Ct. 107, 41 L.Ed. 419; United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 624, 26 L.Ed. 869; see Williams v. United States, 327 U.S. 711, 714, 66 S.Ct. 778, 90 L.Ed. In People v. Pratt, 26 Cal.App.2d 618, 622-......
-
US v. Prentiss, No. 98-2040
...hear the case. Thus, states may exercise jurisdiction when the defendant and the victim are both non-Indians. See United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 623-24 (1881) (concluding that, under the terms of its admission to the union, Colorado acquired criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians......
-
U.S. v. Torres
...1152, crimes committed by non-Indians against non-Indians, in Indian country, are subject to state jurisdiction. United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 26 L.Ed. 869 (1881); New York ex rel. Ray v. Martin, 326 U.S. 496, 66 S.Ct. 307, 90 L.Ed. 261 (1946). In addition, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1152 d......
-
Surviving Castro-huerta: the Historical Perseverance of the Basic Policy of Worcester v. Georgia Protecting Tribal Autonomy, Notwithstanding One Supreme Court Opinion's Errant Narrative to the Contrary
...laboring under a mistake"). But see supra notes 105-107 and accompanying text.111. . See infra notes 112-524 and accompanying text.112. 104 U.S. 621 (1881).113. See Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 142 S. Ct. 2486, 2494, 2496-97, 2500-01, 2503 (2022) (citing and/or quoting McBratney, 104 U.S. at ......
-
Fleeing East from Indian Country: State v. Eriksen and Tribal Inherent Sovereign Authority to Continue Cross-jurisdictional Fresh Pursuit
...States have jurisdiction over non-Indian/non-Indian crime throughout the territorial bounds of the state. United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 624 32. WASH. Rev. CODE § 37.12.010 (2010) ("The state of Washington hereby obligates and binds itself to assume criminal and civil jurisdictio......
-
A Revisionist History of Indian Country
...Metlakatla, 369 U.S. at 75. [102]See Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 527 (1885) (citing 14 Op. Att'y Gen. 33 (1872)). [103]104 U.S. 621 (1881). [104] 45 U.S. (4 How.) 567 (1846). [105]See McBratney, 104 U.S. at 624. [106]Id. at 622 (citing Treaty between the United States of ......
-
CHAPTER 10 FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION OF MINERAL RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON INDIAN LANDS
...496 (1946); See Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243 (1913); Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240 (1896); United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621 (1882). [117] Thomas v. Gay, 169 U.S. 264 (1898); Utah & Northern Ry. Co. v. Fisher, 116 U.S. 28 (1885); Langford v. Monteith, 102 U.S.145 (......