United States v. Stymiest
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 20919, 2009 WL 2998063, 581 F.3d 759 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For purposes of federal criminal jurisdiction under the Indian Major Crimes Act, a defendant's Indian status is determined by a two-part test: (1) the defendant must have some degree of Indian blood, and (2) the defendant must be recognized as an Indian by a tribe or the federal government. This recognition can be established through a multi-factor, totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, and formal tribal enrollment is not a prerequisite.
Facts:
- A group, including Matthew David Stymiest and Juan Hernandez, gathered for a party at a trailer on the Rosebud Sioux Indian Reservation.
- During the party, Hernandez argued with his pregnant girlfriend, Marilyn Roubideaux, then choked and hit her in the abdomen before leaving the trailer.
- Stymiest followed Hernandez out, returned to the trailer to grab a knife, asked if there was a bigger one, and left again.
- Approximately fifteen minutes later, Stymiest returned with the clean knife and stated, 'I just fucked up Juan.'
- Hernandez was discovered about 200 yards from the trailer with significant injuries, including a traumatic brain injury and respiratory failure.
- When arrested by Rosebud tribal police, Stymiest identified himself as an Indian.
Procedural Posture:
- Matthew David Stymiest was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota for assault resulting in serious bodily injury in Indian country.
- Stymiest filed a motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction, arguing he was not an Indian.
- The district court denied the motion, concluding that Indian status is an element of the offense for the jury to decide, not a jurisdictional prerequisite for the court.
- A jury found Stymiest guilty of the charged offense.
- The district court sentenced Stymiest to 110 months in prison.
- Stymiest appealed his conviction and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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:
For the purposes of federal jurisdiction under the Indian Major Crimes Act, is a defendant considered an 'Indian' based on a combination of having some Indian blood and being recognized as an Indian through a variety of factors, even if they are not formally enrolled in a tribe?
Opinions:
Majority - Loken, Chief Judge
Yes, a defendant is considered an 'Indian' for jurisdictional purposes if they have some Indian blood and are recognized as an Indian, even without formal tribal enrollment. The court affirmed that Indian status is an element of the crime to be decided by a jury, not a jurisdictional question for a judge to decide pre-trial. The court applied the two-part 'Rogers' test, noting that the first prong (some Indian blood) was undisputed. For the second prong, recognition, the court endorsed a flexible, multi-factor analysis rather than a rigid hierarchy of evidence. The court held that the jury instruction listing several factors—such as tribal enrollment, government or tribal recognition, enjoying tribal benefits, and social recognition—was proper and that enrollment is not determinative. The evidence was sufficient for the jury to find Stymiest was an Indian, as he repeatedly held himself out as an Indian to law enforcement and healthcare providers, submitted to tribal court jurisdiction on prior occasions, lived on the reservation, and socialized within the Indian community.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the modern approach to determining Indian status in federal criminal law, treating it as a flexible, fact-intensive element of the offense for the jury, rather than a rigid jurisdictional prerequisite for the court. It confirms that the 'recognition' prong of the governing test is not dependent on a single factor like tribal enrollment, empowering juries to consider a defendant's entire course of conduct, including self-identification and interactions with tribal institutions. This approach prevents defendants from disclaiming Indian status to avoid federal prosecution after having previously availed themselves of the benefits and community of a tribe.
