Wallace P. Felicia v. United States
495 F.2d 353, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9263 (1974)
Rule of Law:
Federal courts have jurisdiction to sentence an Indian defendant for a lesser included offense, such as simple assault or assault and battery, when the original indictment charged a violation of the Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 1153) and the evidence warranted a lesser included offense instruction.
Facts:
- Wallace P. Felicia, an Indian, committed an act on the Crow Creek Indian Reservation.
- The act involved an assault upon Emery W. Loudner, Jr., who was also an Indian.
- Felicia was accused of assault with intent to inflict great bodily injury upon Loudner.
Procedural Posture:
- Wallace P. Felicia was indicted in a United States District Court for assault with intent to inflict great bodily injury, a violation of the Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 1153).
- At the conclusion of the evidence presentation at trial, Felicia requested an instruction on the lesser included offenses of simple assault or assault and battery.
- The District Court granted the instruction.
- A jury found Felicia guilty of 'simple assault or assault and battery.'
- The District Court sentenced Felicia to sixty days imprisonment and a $5.00 fine.
- Felicia appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, arguing that the federal courts lacked jurisdiction to sentence him for the lesser included offense.
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 United States District Court have jurisdiction to sentence an Indian defendant for a lesser included offense, such as simple assault or assault and battery, when the original indictment charged a violation of the Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 1153) and the evidence warranted such an instruction?
Opinions:
Majority - Ross, Circuit Judge
Yes, a United States District Court does have jurisdiction to sentence an Indian defendant for a lesser included offense, such as simple assault or assault and battery, when the original indictment charged a violation of the Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 1153) and the evidence warranted such an instruction. The court reexamined its prior holdings, which suggested no jurisdiction over lesser included offenses under § 1153, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205 (1973). Keeble mandated that Indian defendants tried under the Major Crimes Act must receive lesser included offense instructions when warranted by the evidence, to ensure they receive the same procedural rights as non-Indian defendants (being tried 'in the same manner'). While Keeble did not explicitly grant jurisdiction for sentencing on the lesser offense, this court concluded such jurisdiction is implicit for several reasons. First, 18 U.S.C. § 1153 explicitly states that Indians committing enumerated offenses 'shall be subject to the same laws and penalties as all other persons' within exclusive federal jurisdiction, and convictions for lesser included offenses are cognizable under federal law. Second, a 1968 amendment to § 1153 provides that offenses like 'assault resulting in serious bodily injury' (which encompasses the initial charge) 'shall be defined and punished in accordance with the laws of the State' where the offense occurred. South Dakota law defines simple assault as a lesser included offense of assault with intent to inflict great bodily injury and permits conviction and punishment for it. Finally, and most importantly, the Supreme Court in Keeble could not have intended the requirement of a lesser included offense instruction to be an 'exercise in futility,' leaving federal courts without the power to sentence following a conviction for that lesser offense, a point recognized in Justice Stewart's dissent in Keeble. Therefore, the district court properly exercised jurisdiction to sentence Felicia.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the jurisdictional implications of the Supreme Court's decision in Keeble v. United States, ensuring that the procedural right to a lesser included offense instruction under the Major Crimes Act is not rendered meaningless by a lack of sentencing jurisdiction. It reinforces the principle that Indian defendants in federal court are entitled to the same procedural protections and outcomes as non-Indian defendants. The ruling harmonizes federal and state law in defining and punishing offenses within Indian country, preventing a legal loophole that could undermine the effectiveness of jury verdicts for lesser included offenses.
