United States v. Johnnie Lee Bowman, Jr.
679 F.2d 798, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 18275 (1982)
Rule of Law:
Federal courts have jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 1153) to enter judgment and sentence an Indian defendant for a lesser included offense not enumerated in the Act, when the defendant requested and received a jury instruction on that lesser offense, due to the principle of procedural parity established in Keeble v. United States.
Facts:
- Bowman, an Indian, was accused of assault resulting in serious bodily injury to another Indian, a crime covered by the Major Crimes Act.
- During his federal trial, Bowman requested and was granted a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of assault by striking, beating, or wounding.
- The jury convicted Bowman of the lesser included offense.
Procedural Posture:
- Bowman was charged in federal district court under the Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 1153) with assault resulting in serious bodily injury to another Indian.
- The district court granted Bowman's request for a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of assault by striking, beating, or wounding.
- Following the jury's conviction of Bowman for the lesser included offense, the district court entered judgment and sentenced him for that offense.
- Bowman filed a motion in district court to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a), contending the court lacked jurisdiction over the lesser offense.
- The district court denied Bowman's motion.
- Bowman appealed the district court's denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 a federal court have jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 1153) to enter judgment and sentence an Indian defendant for a lesser included offense not specifically enumerated in the Act, when the defendant requested and was granted a jury instruction on that lesser included offense?
Opinions:
Majority - Schroeder, Circuit Judge
Yes, a federal court does have jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act to enter judgment and sentence an Indian defendant for a lesser included offense not enumerated in the Act, when the defendant requested and was granted a jury instruction on that lesser included offense. The Supreme Court implicitly resolved this jurisdictional question in Keeble v. United States, which held that Indian defendants, no less than any other, are entitled to a lesser included offense instruction when facts and evidence merit it. To grant such an instruction but then release a convicted defendant for lack of jurisdiction would mislead the jury and contradict the 'parity of treatment' emphasized in Keeble. The Supreme Court in Keeble was aware of the jurisdictional arguments against lesser offenses, as it reversed an Eighth Circuit decision that had denied such an instruction on jurisdictional grounds. Furthermore, the Keeble dissenters interpreted the majority as finding jurisdiction over lesser offenses. Other circuits (Fifth and Eighth) have also affirmed convictions for lesser included offenses based on Keeble. While acknowledging the potential for expanding federal power beyond Congress's carefully limited intent in the Major Crimes Act, the court finds itself bound by the implications of Keeble.
Dissenting - Henderson, District Judge
No, a federal court does not have jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act to enter judgment and sentence an Indian defendant for a lesser included offense not enumerated in the Act, when the defendant requested and was granted a jury instruction on that lesser included offense. The structure of federal jurisdiction over crimes by Indians requires an explicit rather than implicit resolution of jurisdictional questions, particularly when it encroaches upon the inherent, exclusive jurisdiction of Indian tribes over non-enumerated offenses committed by Indians on Indian land. The crime Bowman was convicted of is not enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 1153, meaning tribal courts retain exclusive jurisdiction. Keeble v. United States was concerned with the procedural right of Indian defendants to receive lesser included offense instructions for fairness in federal court, not with expanding the jurisdictional power of federal courts over crimes not specifically listed by Congress. Depriving tribal courts of exclusive jurisdiction by mere implication from a procedural Supreme Court decision is inconsistent with the framework of Indian criminal law. Even if a federal court lacks jurisdiction, the defendant would not necessarily escape punishment, as tribes, as separate sovereigns, could prosecute the defendant.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the jurisdictional implications of the Supreme Court's Keeble decision, confirming that the procedural right to a lesser included offense instruction for Indian defendants in federal court necessarily implies the court's jurisdiction to impose sentence for such offenses. The ruling reinforces the principle of 'parity of treatment' for Indian defendants, even if it appears to expand federal judicial power over crimes not explicitly enumerated in the Major Crimes Act. It delineates a boundary where procedural fairness in federal court proceedings takes precedence over a strict construction of federal jurisdiction, implicitly limiting the exclusive criminal jurisdiction of tribal courts for offenses that are lesser included to Major Crimes Act offenses.
