MCCLAIN v. STATE
2021 OK CR 38
Okla. Crim. App.2021Background
- Jeffrey Don McClain was convicted by jury of rape by instrumentation, two counts of lewd acts with a child under 16, and pattern of criminal offenses; the trial court imposed consecutive sentences.
- After briefing, McClain for the first time argued the district court lacked jurisdiction under McGirt because he is an enrolled Choctaw Nation member and the crimes occurred within the Chickasaw reservation.
- This Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine (1) McClain's Indian status and (2) whether the crimes occurred in Indian Country, directing consideration of BIA/CDIB evidence, tribal membership, treaties, statutes, maps, and testimony.
- The district court accepted an amended stipulation and findings: McClain holds a CDIB showing 5/32 Choctaw/Creek blood and is a Choctaw Nation member; the charged locations fall within the historic Chickasaw reservation bounds.
- On appeal the State argued it had concurrent jurisdiction and asked for a stay to allow federal custody; the Court found McClain met his burden on status and location, held McGirt controls, reversed the convictions, and remanded with instructions to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | McClain's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indian status: Was McClain an Indian at time of offense? | He is an enrolled Choctaw Nation member with a BIA CDIB showing 5/32 blood and testified to tribal recognition. | Contested status before remand; after evidentiary hearing State offered no successful rebuttal. | Court found McClain had some Indian blood and was a tribal member at time of the crimes. |
| Location: Did the crimes occur in Indian Country (Chickasaw reservation)? | The parties stipulated the crime locations fall within the Chickasaw boundaries from the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek. | State took no position on reservation existence after remand but disputed jurisdictional consequence. | Court found the crimes occurred within the Chickasaw Reservation and Congress has not disestablished it. |
| Jurisdictional effect: Can Oklahoma prosecute these offenses? | McGirt bars state prosecution of Indians for major crimes committed in Indian Country; prosecution belongs in federal court. | State argued it has concurrent jurisdiction with federal government and thus may prosecute. | Applying McGirt, Court held the State lacked jurisdiction; concurrent-jurisdiction argument rejected. |
| Remedy: What relief is appropriate? | Vacatur of state conviction and dismissal; allow federal authorities to prosecute if appropriate. | Sought a stay to permit U.S. Attorney to assume custody before mandate. | Judgments and sentences reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss; mandate stayed 20 days (no longer 30). |
Key Cases Cited
- McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020) (holds certain Oklahoma reservation boundaries remain intact for federal Indian-country jurisdiction)
- Negonsott v. Samuels, 507 U.S. 99 (1993) (federal criminal laws extend to Indian country via Indian Country Crimes Act)
- United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621 (1881) (distinguishes territorial/sovereign jurisdiction concepts)
- United States v. Langford, 641 F.3d 1195 (10th Cir. 2011) (treats jurisdiction in Indian country as territorial/sovereign, not subject-matter jurisdiction)
- State v. Delso, 298 P.3d 1192 (Okla. Crim. App. 2013) (standard for appellate review of district court fact findings)