United States v. Smith John and Harry Smith John
587 F.2d 683, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 17713 (1979)
Rule of Law:
Federal district courts have jurisdiction to convict an Indian for a lesser-included misdemeanor offense, such as simple assault, arising from an initial charge of a major crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1153 against a non-Indian in Indian country, even if the lesser offense is not specifically enumerated in § 1153, either through the broader jurisdictional grant of 18 U.S.C. § 1152 or implicitly recognized by Keeble v. United States.
Facts:
- Smith John, a Choctaw Indian, committed an assault with intent to kill against Artis Jenkins, a non-Indian.
- The assault took place in Indian country.
- During his trial, Smith John requested and received jury instructions on the lesser included offense of simple assault.
Procedural Posture:
- In October 1975, a federal grand jury indicted Smith John for assault with intent to kill Artis Jenkins, a non-Indian, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 113(a).
- At the conclusion of the trial, the jury convicted Smith John of simple assault, and the District Court sentenced him to 90 days’ imprisonment and a $300 fine.
- Smith John appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Fifth Circuit (appellate court) reversed the conviction, holding that the District Court was without jurisdiction because the land on which the offense took place was not 'Indian country.'
- The U.S. Supreme Court (highest court) reversed the Fifth Circuit's jurisdictional holding and remanded for further proceedings, noting that the Fifth Circuit's opinion had not addressed whether the District Court had jurisdiction to enter a judgment of conviction for simple assault, a misdemeanor not specifically listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1153.
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 district court have jurisdiction to convict an Indian defendant of a lesser-included misdemeanor offense, specifically simple assault, when the initial charge was a major crime (assault with intent to kill) under 18 U.S.C. § 1153 against a non-Indian in Indian country, and the lesser offense is not among those explicitly enumerated in § 1153?
Opinions:
Majority - Coleman, Circuit Judge
Yes, the District Court had jurisdiction to enter the judgment of conviction for the offense of simple assault. The court provided two independent reasons for this conclusion. First, 18 U.S.C. § 1152 confers jurisdiction on District Courts to try Indians accused of committing any acts proscribed by general federal enclave law against the person or property of a non-Indian. This jurisdiction is not limited to the major crimes enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 1153. The court interpreted the phrase "other person" in § 1153 as merely duplicating the jurisdictional result achieved under § 1152, controlling only where § 1153 explicitly conflicts with a general federal enclave statute. This interpretation aligns with conclusions reached by the Seventh and Ninth Circuits in similar cases, such as United States v. Burland and United States v. Sosseur. The court also found that the indictment's omission of a specific reference to § 1152 was a harmless error, as it still sufficiently contained the elements of the offense and protected the defendant from double jeopardy. Alternatively, even if 18 U.S.C. § 1153 were considered the sole jurisdictional basis, the Supreme Court's decision in Keeble v. United States implicitly recognized that federal courts have jurisdiction to convict and punish for a lesser offense included within the enumerated crimes of § 1153. The court reasoned that when a major crime proscribed by § 1153 includes lesser offenses, the Indian offender can be punished for those lesser offenses if the facts warrant federal prosecution for the major offense. The dissent in Keeble had specifically highlighted this jurisdictional implication.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of federal criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed by Indians in Indian country, particularly concerning lesser-included offenses not explicitly listed in the Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 1153). By affirming that 18 U.S.C. § 1152 provides a broad jurisdictional basis for crimes committed by Indians against non-Indians, and by reinforcing the implicit jurisdictional reach of Keeble for lesser-included offenses, the ruling ensures comprehensive federal oversight in these complex jurisdictional scenarios. It prevents a gap in jurisdiction where an Indian could escape federal punishment for a minor crime that is a lesser-included offense of a major crime initially charged, solidifying the federal government's role in maintaining order in Indian country.
