13 Am. Tribal Law 466
Navajo Nation Supreme Court2016Background
- Judge Roy Tso called and texted prosecutor Ruby Benally after his sister and niece were arrested, requesting their release; Benally felt intimidated and later learned of an alleged $750 offer to dismiss charges.
- The Navajo Nation charged Tso with Abuse of Office (17 N.N.C. § 364); bench trial resulted in conviction on December 18, 2015.
- At trial, Benally testified for the prosecution and was later called by Tso; cross-examination elicited testimony about a July 14, 2013 meeting and the alleged monetary offer.
- Tso raised procedural and evidentiary challenges (discovery Rule 25/Open File, hearsay, prosecutorial misconduct, sufficiency of proof) and contested sentencing when the court’s written order imposed automatic forfeiture of office under 17 N.N.C. § 365 after an earlier oral denial.
- The trial court found each element of Abuse of Office proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and concluded forfeiture of office is mandatory upon conviction; this court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Navajo Nation) | Defendant's Argument (Tso) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Rule 25 / Open-file disclosure — due process | Open-file disclosure and pretrial reports satisfied Rule 25; defendant had access and opportunity to prepare | Formal Rule 25 listing and 20-day compliance statement were not filed; Open-file does not substitute for mandatory disclosures; inability to prepare warranted dismissal | Court: Open-file compliance and pretrial reports satisfied Rule 25; no due-process violation; denial of dismissal affirmed |
| 2) Evidentiary rulings (admission of various testimony) | Testimony admitted for proper purposes (identity, relevance, reason for custody, attempted dismissal); hearsay objections waived when defendant opened the door | Trial court admitted uncharged-offense evidence, guilt-by-association, and hearsay in violation of Navajo Rules of Evidence | Court: Admissions were within rules and relevant; hearsay objection was waived when defendant elicited testimony; no reversible error |
| 3) Prosecutorial misconduct / perjury allegations | No misconduct; testimony admitted according to rules; allegations unsubstantiated and premised on evidence not offered at trial | Prosecutor and Benally cooperated to introduce perjured testimony; trial court should have struck testimony or reversed | Court: No prosecutorial misconduct shown; trial court properly denied motion to strike; no reversible error |
| 4) Sufficiency of evidence — elements of Abuse of Office | Evidence (calls/texts, Benally’s reaction, July offer, Tso’s status as judge/former prosecutor, Code of Judicial Conduct) supported inferences on each element beyond reasonable doubt | Calls/texts were mere inquiries; lack of direct proof he acted in official capacity, knew conduct unlawful, or impeded rights; insufficient evidence | Court: Viewing evidence favorably to prosecution, reasonable inferences support all elements; conviction affirmed |
| 5) Forfeiture of office at sentencing (17 N.N.C. § 365) | Forfeiture is mandatory upon conviction; written order reflecting automatic forfeiture controls over earlier oral statement | Trial court’s oral sentence did not order forfeiture; written order changing sentence unlawfully removed him from office; Baker precedent forbids changing sentence after oral pronouncement | Court: Written judgment controls absent prejudice; § 365 mandates automatic forfeiture on conviction; court corrected oral error and forfeiture affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- No authorities with official reporter citations were cited in the opinion; the opinion primarily relies on Navajo Nation tribal decisions and internal procedural authorities.