STATE v. LAWHORN
2021 OK CR 37
Okla. Crim. App.2021Background
- Jeremy Lawhorn was charged in Ottawa County with one count of Lewd or Indecent Acts with a Child under 16. He moved to dismiss for lack of state jurisdiction, asserting he is an Indian and the offense occurred in Indian Country (the historic Quapaw Reservation).
- The parties stipulated the offense occurred within the Quapaw Nation’s historic boundaries; the district court admitted two treaties (1833 and 1867) establishing those lands.
- The district court found Lawhorn is an Indian for federal criminal purposes and that the land is within the Quapaw Reservation; it granted the motion, quashed the information, and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- The State appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to resolve the reservation status. The State presented no congressional disestablishment evidence in the record.
- The court applied McGirt v. Oklahoma and related precedent: reservation status is determined solely by Acts of Congress, and absent clear congressional intent to disestablish, a reservation continues to exist.
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed: the Quapaw Reservation remains in existence, the land is Indian Country, and the State lacks jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the land where the offense occurred is within the Quapaw Reservation / Indian Country | State disputed or sought clarification of reservation status and appealed to resolve the issue (argued State jurisdiction) | Lawhorn: he is an Indian and the crime occurred within the historic Quapaw Reservation, so state lacks jurisdiction | The court held the Quapaw Reservation was established by treaty and not disestablished by Congress; the land is Indian Country |
| Whether Oklahoma has jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act to prosecute the offense | State asserted authority to prosecute in state court (but offered no evidence of congressional disestablishment) | Lawhorn argued MCA gives exclusive federal jurisdiction for crimes by Indians in Indian Country | Held: Under McGirt and related precedent, the MCA applies — the State lacks jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (U.S. 2020) (holding Creek Reservation remained in existence absent congressional disestablishment; controls Indian Country analysis)
- Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (U.S. 1984) (courts require clear congressional intent to disestablish a reservation)
- Sizemore v. State, 485 P.3d 867 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021) (applying McGirt principles in Oklahoma criminal jurisdiction context)
- State v. Klindt, 782 P.2d 401 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989) (state lacks jurisdiction over crimes by or against Indians in Indian Country)
- Hanes v. State, 973 P.2d 330 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998) (background on tribal resettlement and historical tribal lands relevant to reservation analyses)