ROTH v. STATE, 2021 OK CR 27

Richard Ray Roth was tried by jury and convicted of first-degree manslaughter and leaving the scene after a 2013 collision that killed 12‑year‑old Billy Jack Chuculate Lord; jury recommended 19 years + $7,500 (manslaughter) and 1 year + $1,000 (leaving scene), to run consecutively.
After McGirt v. Oklahoma, this Court remanded for factfinding on (a) the victim's Indian status and (b) whether the crimes occurred on the Creek Reservation; the parties stipulated the victim was a Cherokee Nation member (3/8 Cherokee) and the offense occurred within the Creek Reservation.
Post‑remand district‑court findings accepted the stipulations; the State then argued it nonetheless has concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute non‑Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian Country.
The Court applied federal law (18 U.S.C. §§ 1151–1153 and McGirt), held federal jurisdiction governs crimes by non‑Indians against Indians in Indian Country, and concluded Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to prosecute Roth.
The Court reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss; the opinion acknowledges hardship to the victim’s family and notes uncertainty whether federal authorities can or will prosecute (statute of limitations issues raised by dissent).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Roth)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the state court lacked jurisdiction because the victim was Indian and the crime occurred in Indian Country	Victim is an Indian and offense occurred on Creek Reservation, so federal statutes govern and state lacks jurisdiction	(relevant only to response) — N/A	Court held the stipulations establish Indian status and location; federal law governs; state lacked jurisdiction.
Whether Oklahoma has concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute a non‑Indian who kills an Indian in Indian Country	N/A	State: it has concurrent jurisdiction over crimes by non‑Indians against Indians in Indian Country	Court rejected concurrent‑jurisdiction theory; federal law preempts state criminal jurisdiction here.
Whether expiration of the federal statute of limitations (or other procedural bars) leaves a jurisdictional gap allowing state prosecution	Roth raised jurisdictional claim to invoke federal preemption; did not press limitations defense	State and dissent argue that if federal prosecution is time‑barred, state jurisdiction should remain to avoid a gap	Majority: federal preemption controls; dismissal ordered despite potential statute‑of‑limitations consequences; dissent would retain state jurisdiction where federal prosecution is time‑barred.

McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020) (Creek Reservation was never disestablished; crimes in Indian Country governed by federal law)
Williams v. United States, 327 U.S. 711 (1946) (federal jurisdiction over certain crimes committed by non‑Indians against Indians in Indian Country)
Negonsott v. Samuels, 507 U.S. 99 (1993) (Indian Country Crimes Act extends federal criminal laws into Indian Country except inter‑Indian offenses)
United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634 (1978) (MCA preempts state criminal jurisdiction when it applies)
Worchester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832) (tribal relations and federal exclusive role in Indian affairs)
Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959) (state courts lack jurisdiction over cases by/against Indians on reservations absent congressional authorization)
Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984) (principles limiting state jurisdiction in Indian Country)
United States v. Cuch, 79 F.3d 987 (10th Cir. 1996) (post‑decision jurisdictional consequences and limits of collateral attacks)