United States v. Langford
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7411
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Langford was convicted in federal court under the Assimilative Crimes Act as applied through ICCA for being a spectator at a cockfight in Indian country on land held in trust for a Kiowa allottee.
- The cockfighting facility was located on Kiowa allottee trust land, within Indian country under 18 U.S.C. § 1151(c).
- Langford is a non-Indian; the information and trial record did not allege or prove his Indian status.
- The assimilated Oklahoma statute criminalizes being a spectator at a cockfight, the conduct charged in this case.
- The government failed to present any evidence of Langford’s Indian status, creating a jurisdictional error that affected the validity of the conviction.
- The court vacated Langford’s conviction and remanded to dismiss the information with prejudice, noting Oklahoma may exercise jurisdiction over victimless crimes by non-Indians in Indian country.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal jurisdiction exists for victimless crimes by non-Indians in Indian country | Langford | Langford contends no federal jurisdiction without an Indian victim or perpetrator | No federal jurisdiction; vacate conviction |
| Whether the information adequately alleged Langford’s Indian status | United States | Langford’s status not alleged or proven | Plain error; failure to prove essential element |
| Whether McBratney framework governs victimless crimes in Indian country | United States | McBratney controls jurisdiction over non-Indians in Indian country | McBratney applies; federal jurisdiction absent for non-Indians in victimless crimes |
| Whether Oklahoma has jurisdiction over non-Indian victimless crimes in Indian country | United States | Oklahoma may prosecute | States have exclusive jurisdiction for non-Indians; federal jurisdiction absent |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621 (1881) (federal jurisdiction over crimes in Indian country depends on Indian status; equality of states)
- Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240 (1896) (state jurisdiction over crimes within reservations; equal footing doctrine)
- People v. Martin, 326 U.S. 496 (1946) (equal footing; states have jurisdiction over non-Indians in certain reservations)
- United States v. Ramsey, 271 U.S. 467 (1926) (statehood ends federal authority over certain crimes in Indian country)
- Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984) (state jurisdiction: non-Indians in Indian country; victimless crimes by non-Indians not federalized)
- Prentiss, 256 F.3d 971 (2001) (elements of ICCA crimes; Indian status essential; en banc)
- Sinks, 473 F.3d 1315 (2007) (plain error review and element proof analysis in ICCA context)
- Kaufman, 546 F.3d 1242 (2008) (plain error when essential element not proven; jurisdictional defect)
- Goode, 483 F.3d 676 (2007) (contrast on evidentiary cure and jurisdiction)