SIZEMORE v. STATE
2021 OK CR 6
Okla. Crim. App.2021Background
- In July 2016 Sizemore was arrested after family reported concern; his 21‑month‑old daughter drowned and he was charged with first‑degree murder and assault/battery on a police officer in Pittsburg County, Oklahoma.
- A jury convicted him; he received life without parole on the murder count and five years concurrent on the assault count.
- On appeal Sizemore argued Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction because he was an "Indian" and the crimes occurred in Indian country; the court remanded for factual findings after McGirt v. Oklahoma.
- The parties stipulated (and the district court found) that Sizemore had Indian blood, was an enrolled member of the Choctaw Nation on the offense date, and the Choctaw Nation is federally recognized.
- The district court (adopting treaty history beginning with the 1830 Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek and subsequent treaties) found a Choctaw reservation was established in the 1800s and Congress never expressly disestablished it; the Court of Criminal Appeals adopted those findings.
- Because the murder is an offense covered by the Major Crimes Act and the crimes occurred in Indian country, the Court vacated the convictions and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of state jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sizemore is an "Indian" for federal jurisdictional purposes | Sizemore: he is an enrolled member of the Choctaw Nation | State: did not contest; parties stipulated | Court accepted stipulation; Sizemore is an Indian under federal law |
| Whether the crimes occurred in Indian country (Choctaw reservation) | Sizemore: 19th‑century treaties created a Choctaw reservation and Congress never disestablished it | State: presented no evidence of disestablishment on remand | Court held treaties established a reservation and Congress never clearly disestablished it; the location is Indian country |
| Whether Oklahoma had jurisdiction to prosecute these offenses | Sizemore: Major Crimes Act preempts state jurisdiction for murder (and possibly the assault) committed by an Indian in Indian country | State: asserted jurisdiction at trial but provided no rebuttal evidence on reservation status on remand | Held: State lacked jurisdiction; convictions vacated and case remanded with instructions to dismiss (federal jurisdiction) |
| Other trial‑level claims (ineffective assistance, sufficiency, admissibility, arrest, cumulative error) | Sizemore raised multiple trial errors | State defended convictions on the merits | Moot — appellate court declined to address them because jurisdictional ruling required dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020) (held reservation status under 19th‑century treaties controls; framework for determining whether Congress disestablished reservations)
- Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984) (disestablishment of a reservation requires clear congressional intent)
- Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1994) (examples of statutory language showing cession or restoration relevant to disestablishment analysis)
- Nebraska v. Parker, 136 S. Ct. 1072 (2016) (reinforces requirement that Acts of Congress must clearly show intent to disestablish a reservation)
- State v. Klindt, 782 P.2d 401 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989) (Oklahoma lacks jurisdiction over crimes committed by or against Indians in Indian country)