Keeble v. United States
412 U.S. 205 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An Indian prosecuted in federal court under the Major Crimes Act is entitled to a jury instruction on a lesser included offense if the evidence warrants it, even if the lesser offense is not one of the crimes enumerated in the Act over which federal courts would have independent jurisdiction.
Facts:
- The petitioner, Keeble, and his brother-in-law, Robert Pomani, were both members of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe.
- On the evening of March 6, 1971, while on the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe reservation, Keeble and Pomani were drinking and began to quarrel.
- The quarrel escalated into a physical altercation, during which Keeble severely beat Pomani, leaving him bleeding from the head and face.
- Keeble then went to bed, leaving the injured Pomani outside.
- The next morning, Keeble found Pomani's lifeless body a short distance from the house.
- An autopsy revealed that Pomani died from exposure to excessive cold, although the beating was a contributing factor.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States prosecuted Keeble in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota for assault with intent to commit serious bodily injury under the Major Crimes Act.
- At the conclusion of the trial, Keeble's request for a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of simple assault was refused by the district court.
- The jury convicted Keeble of assault with intent to commit serious bodily injury.
- Keeble (appellant) appealed the conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, arguing the refusal to give the instruction was error.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding the instruction was properly denied.
- Keeble petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Major Crimes Act, which grants federal courts jurisdiction over specific enumerated offenses committed by Indians on reservations, preclude a federal court from instructing a jury on a lesser included offense that is not one of the enumerated crimes?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan
No. The Major Crimes Act does not preclude a jury instruction on a lesser included offense that is not enumerated in the Act. The Act explicitly provides that Indians shall be tried 'in the same manner' as all other persons, and any non-Indian defendant would be entitled to such an instruction under the same circumstances. The purpose of the lesser included offense doctrine is to protect defendants from the substantial risk that a jury, convinced the defendant is guilty of some crime but uncertain about an element of the greater offense, will wrongly convict on the greater charge rather than acquit entirely. Denying this procedural safeguard to Indian defendants would raise difficult constitutional questions and contravene the Act's mandate for equal treatment in trial procedure.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Stewart
Yes. The Major Crimes Act implicitly precludes a jury instruction on a lesser included offense not enumerated in the Act. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and can only adjudicate offenses explicitly criminalized by Congress. Simple assault committed by an Indian on a reservation is not a federal offense; jurisdiction over it remains with the tribe. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 31(c), which governs lesser included offenses, applies only to federal 'offenses.' A federal court cannot acquire jurisdiction over a non-federal crime merely because a defendant requests an instruction on it, as jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent of the parties.
Analysis:
This decision prioritizes a defendant's right to a fair trial over a rigid interpretation of federal jurisdictional statutes. It establishes that when a federal court has proper jurisdiction over a major crime under the Act, that jurisdiction implicitly extends to adjudicating lesser included offenses as part of the trial process, even if those lesser offenses would not independently support federal jurisdiction. This prevents juries from being forced into an 'all-or-nothing' choice that could lead to unjust convictions. The ruling significantly clarifies the procedural rights of Indian defendants, ensuring they align with those of other defendants in the federal system.
