United States v. Johnny Smith
925 F.3d 410
9th Cir.2019Background
- Defendant Johnny Ellery Smith, an enrolled member of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, led two high-speed vehicle chases from Warm Springs police on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation in Oregon.
- Smith was federally indicted (two counts) for violating Oregon’s fleeing/attempting to elude statute, charged under the Assimilative Crimes Act (ACA) as applied to Indian country by the Indian Country Crimes Act (ICCA).
- Smith moved to dismiss for lack of federal jurisdiction, arguing (1) the ACA does not apply in Indian country, (2) the ACA cannot be used where tribal law could prosecute, and (3) the Major Crimes Act (MCA) occupies the field of federal jurisdiction over state-law-type offenses in Indian country.
- The district court denied dismissal; Smith pleaded guilty while reserving appellate review of the jurisdictional ruling.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed jurisdiction de novo and affirmed, holding the ACA applies in Indian country (via 18 U.S.C. § 7 and § 1152) and that neither the ICCA exceptions nor the MCA barred prosecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Smith) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of the ACA in Indian country | ACA applies to federal enclaves; Indian country falls within §7 definition and thus ACA applies | ACA does not apply to Indian country; prior cases merely assumed applicability | ACA applies to Indian country via 18 U.S.C. §7 and §1152; Ninth Circuit affirms prior precedent |
| Whether ICCA exceptions bar ACA prosecution | ICCA applies to ACA in Indian country but exceptions are narrow and do not apply here | ICCA’s exceptions (esp. Indian-on-Indian and tribal-punished exceptions) bar ACA when tribe could prosecute; ‘‘victimless’’ crimes excluded | ICCA exceptions apply to ACA in Indian country but do not bar prosecution here; fleeing/eluding is a public-safety offense outside domestic/tribal-only domain |
| Whether tribal capability to prosecute precludes federal ACA prosecution | Federal prosecution permitted even if tribe could prosecute; ICCA exempts only where tribe already punished | Federal prosecution is unlawful intrusion if tribe could have prosecuted | Having ability to prosecute in tribal court does not preclude federal prosecution; ICCA excepts only where tribe already punished |
| Whether the MCA limits federal jurisdiction to the listed major crimes | MCA supplements ICCA by adding specified crimes; it does not displace other federal enclave jurisdiction like ACA | MCA occupies the field and bars federal prosecution of other state-law-type crimes in Indian country | MCA does not preclude ACA prosecutions; it expanded federal jurisdiction for enumerated major crimes but did not repeal ACA/ICCA authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. United States, 327 U.S. 711 (ACA cited as applying in Indian reservations)
- United States v. Marcyes, 557 F.2d 1361 (9th Cir. 1977) (Ninth Circuit relied on Williams to treat ACA as applicable in Indian country)
- Lewis v. United States, 523 U.S. 155 (ACA’s gap-filling purpose for federal enclaves)
- United States v. Begay, 42 F.3d 486 (9th Cir. 1994) (statutory interpretation in Indian country; ICCA/ACA interplay)
- United States v. Thunder Hawk, 127 F.3d 705 (8th Cir. 1997) (ACA applied in Indian country; Indian-on-Indian exception does not automatically cover all "victimless" crimes)
- United States v. Burland, 441 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir. 1971) (ICCA extends federal enclave laws including ACA to Indian country)
- Acunia v. United States, 404 F.2d 140 (9th Cir. 1968) (holding ACA among the general laws extended to Indian territory)
- Quiver v. United States, 241 U.S. 602 (1916) (discussed as early statement favoring tribal regulation of Indian-on-Indian domestic relations)
- Wheeler v. United States, 435 U.S. 313 (Double jeopardy and concurrent tribal-federal prosecutions)