United States v. Victor Reza-Ramos, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4390

Background

Jose Flores, identified by witnesses and his death certificate as Tohono O’odham, was beaten to death on the Tohono O’odham reservation; blood, drag marks, a broken shovel, and other physical evidence tied the scene together.
Victor Reza‑Ramos, a non‑Indian, was linked to the scene by fingerprints on the victim’s truck and charged in federal court with first‑degree premeditated murder and felony murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1111, with applicability to Indian country invoked via 18 U.S.C. § 1152.
Government presented evidence of Flores’s Indian status (death certificate, medical examiner, witnesses testifying Flores was a tribal member who lived and worked on the reservation and spoke the tribal language).
The district court instructed the jury using Arizona’s third‑degree burglary statute (A.R.S. § 13‑1506(A)) to define “burglary” for the felony‑murder predicate; jury convicted on premeditated murder and two felony‑murder theories (one burglary‑based, one robbery‑based) and acquitted on one robbery theory.
On appeal, Reza‑Ramos argued (1) the government failed to prove the victim’s Indian status (jurisdictional), (2) insufficient evidence of premeditation, and (3) error in defining “burglary” under § 1111 by reference to Arizona law via the Assimilative Crimes Act (ACA).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Government)	Defendant's Argument (Reza‑Ramos)	Held
Whether government must prove victim was an Indian to invoke § 1152 jurisdiction	Government argued the indictment alleged Flores was an Indian and thus federal jurisdiction applies	Reza‑Ramos argued the government bore burden to prove Indian status as jurisdictional element	Government bears burden; court held gov't must prove Flores was an Indian and did so
Sufficiency of evidence that Flores was an Indian	Gov presented death certificate, medical examiner report, and witnesses testifying Flores was Tohono O’odham and lived/worked on reservation	Reza‑Ramos said evidence was inadequate without tribal enrollment certificate	Held evidence satisfied both prongs (blood quantum/ancestry and tribal membership/affiliation) under Zepeda test
Sufficiency of evidence of premeditation for first‑degree murder	Gov relied on circumstantial evidence (weapon from house, multiple strikes, dragging and concealment)	Reza‑Ramos argued killing was not deliberate or premeditated	Held evidence, viewed favorably to gov, was sufficient to support premeditation conviction
Whether ACA/permitting use of state burglary statute to define burglary predicate under § 1111 was proper	Gov argued ACA may assimilate state burglary to define predicate felony	Reza‑Ramos argued § 1111 covers murder/felony‑murder fully and state burglary should not define federal term	Held district court erred: § 1111 occupies field for murder predicates; "burglary" must be defined by federal generic meaning (breaking/forcible entry into building/structure with intent to commit crime); use of Arizona § 13‑1506(A) was erroneous and not harmless, so felony‑murder conviction vacated

Key Cases Cited

United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621 (establishes limits on federal jurisdiction in Indian country when both parties are non‑Indians)
Zepeda v. United States, 792 F.3d 1103 (en banc) (two‑part test for Indian status: blood quantum/ancestry and membership/affiliation with federally recognized tribe)
Lewis v. United States, 523 U.S. 155 (ACA/assimilation framework; federal statutes may preclude assimilation when Congress intended federal coverage to be exclusive)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (framework for deriving a generic federal definition of an undefined predicate offense like burglary)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
Begay v. United States, 673 F.3d 1038 (premeditation explained; circumstantial evidence may establish planning/deliberation)
Gomez v. United States, 87 F.3d 1093 (government’s burden to prove jurisdictional elements in federal criminal cases)