Bea Ann Epperson v State Of Oklahoma
F-2017-336
Filed: Apr. 8, 2021
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma
Summary
Bea Ann Epperson appealed her conviction for embezzlement. The conviction and sentence were reversed. Justices Hudson and Lumpkin dissented. In this case, Epperson was convicted of two counts of embezzlement after a trial in McIntosh County. She argued that the court did not have the power to charge her because she is a member of the Cherokee Nation and the crimes happened on the Creek Reservation. The Court agreed that since Epperson is recognized as an Indian and the crimes occurred in Indian Country, the state had no right to prosecute her. Therefore, her conviction was overturned, and the case was sent back to be dismissed.
Decision
The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS. The MANDATE is not to be issued until twenty (20) days from the delivery and filing of this decision.
Issues
- Was there a jurisdictional issue regarding the prosecution of the Appellant based on her Indian status?
- Did the crimes occur within the boundaries of the Creek Reservation?
- Was the Indian status of the victims relevant to the jurisdiction of the case?
- Did the District Court properly determine the Indian status of the Appellant and the location of the crimes?
- Was the burden of proof on the State to establish jurisdiction after the Appellant presented prima facie evidence?
- Did the stipulations by the parties affect the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the District Court?
- Was the decision impacted by the precedents established in McGirt v. Oklahoma?
Findings
- The court erred in finding the state lacked jurisdiction to prosecute Appellant.
- Evidence was sufficient to establish Appellant's Indian status.
- Evidence was sufficient to establish the crimes occurred in Indian Country.
- The judgment and sentence of the District Court is reversed and the case remanded with instructions to dismiss.
F-2017-336
Apr. 8, 2021
Bea Ann Epperson
Appellantv
State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
HUDSON, JUDGE: Appellant, Bea Ann Epperson, was tried and convicted at a non-jury trial of two counts of Embezzlement of Building Trust, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2012, § 1451 in McIntosh County District Court, Case No. CF-2014-170. The Honorable James Bland, District Judge, presided at trial and sentenced Epperson to concurrent terms of five (5) years imprisonment on each count, all suspended, plus a $500.00 fine. Appellant now appeals from these convictions and sentences.
In Proposition III of her brief in chief, Appellant claims the District Court lacked jurisdiction to try her case. Appellant argues that she is a member of the Cherokee Nation; that the victims in this case, Steven and Kinya Meineke, are possible members of the Creek Nation; and the crimes occurred within the boundaries of the Creek Reservation. Pursuant to McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), Appellant’s claim raises three separate questions: (a) the Indian status of Appellant; (b) the Indian status of the victims; and (c) whether the crimes occurred on the Creek Reservation. These issues require fact-finding. We therefore remanded this case to the District Court of McIntosh County for an evidentiary hearing. Recognizing the historical and specialized nature of this remand for evidentiary hearing, we requested the Attorney General and District Attorney work in coordination to effect uniformity and completeness in the hearing process.
Upon Appellant’s presentation of prima facie evidence as to Appellant’s and/or either victim’s legal status as an Indian and as to the location of the crime in Indian Country, the burden shifts to the State to prove it has jurisdiction. The District Court was ordered to determine whether Appellant and the victims have some Indian blood and are recognized as an Indian by a tribe or the federal government. The District Court was further ordered to determine whether the crimes in this case occurred in Indian Country. In doing so, the District Court was directed to consider any evidence provided by the parties, including but not limited to treaties, statutes, maps, and/or testimony. We also directed the District Court that in the event the parties agreed as to what the evidence would show regarding the questions presented, the parties may enter into a written stipulation setting forth those facts upon which they agree and which answer the questions presented and provide the stipulation to the District Court. The District Court was also ordered to file written findings of fact and conclusions of law with this Court.
A status hearing was held in this case on September 24, 2020, before the Honorable Michael Hogan, District Judge. Written findings of fact and conclusions of law from that hearing were timely filed with this Court along with a transcript of the hearing. The record indicates that appearing before the District Court on this matter were attorneys from the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office, the McIntosh County District Attorney’s Office and counsel for Appellant. In its written findings of fact and conclusions of law, the District Court stated that the parties have jointly stipulated that the evidence will show Appellant is 3/64th degree Indian blood of the Cherokee Tribe; that Appellant was an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation Tribe of Oklahoma on the date of the charged crimes; that the Cherokee Nation Tribe of Oklahoma is an Indian Tribal Entity recognized by the federal government; and that the charged crimes in this case occurred within the Creek Reservation. The District Court attached as Exhibit 1 to its findings of fact and conclusions of law a document entitled Stipulations of Counsel signed by all counsel reflecting these stipulations. The District Court accepted the stipulations made by the parties and concluded in its findings of fact and conclusions of law that Appellant has some Indian blood, that she is also recognized as an Indian by a tribe and the federal government, and therefore Appellant is an Indian under federal law. Finally, the District Court accepted the stipulation of the parties that the crimes in this case occurred on the Creek Reservation.
On November 12, 2020, the State filed with this Court a supplemental brief after remand. In its brief, the State acknowledges the District Court accepted the parties’ stipulations as discussed above, 1 and the District Court’s findings. The State contends in its brief that should this Court find Appellant is entitled to relief based on the District Court’s findings, this Court should stay any order reversing the convictions for thirty (30) days so that the appropriate authorities can review her case, determine whether it is appropriate to file charges and take custody of Appellant. Cf. 22 O.S.2011, § 846.
After thorough consideration of this proposition and the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, and the briefs of the parties, we find that under the law and evidence relief is warranted. Based upon the record before us, the District Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are supported by the stipulations jointly made by the parties at the status hearing. We therefore find Appellant has met her burden of establishing her status as an Indian, having 3/64th degree Indian blood and being a member of the Cherokee Nation Tribe of Oklahoma. We further find Appellant met her burden of proving the crimes in this case occurred on the Creek Reservation and, thus, occurred in Indian Country. Pursuant to McGirt, we find the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute Appellant in this matter.
The Judgment and Sentence in this case is hereby reversed and the case remanded to the District Court of McIntosh County with instructions to dismiss the case.
DECISION
The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS. The MANDATE is not to be issued until twenty (20) days from the delivery and filing of this decision.
APPEARANCES AT TRIAL
JANET BICKEL-HUTSON
ATTORNEY AT LAW
417 WEST BROADWAY ST.
MUSKOGEE, OK 74401
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
APPEARANCES ON APPEAL
KIMBERLY D. HEINZE
OKLA. INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM
P.O. BOX 926
NORMAN, OK 73070
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
CAROL ISKI
GREG STIDHAM
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
MCINTOSH COUNTY
110 NORTH 1ST ST.
EUFAULA, OK 74432
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE
MIKE HUNTER
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
KEELEY L. MILLER
ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL
313 N.E. 21ST STREET
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE
LEWIS, JUDGE, CONCURRING IN RESULTS: Based on my special writings in Bosse v. State, 2021 OK CR 3, P.3d and Hogner v. State, 2021 OK CR 4, P.3d I concur in results in the decision to dismiss this case for the lack of state jurisdiction.
Footnotes:
- 21 O.S.Supp.2012, § 1451
- McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020)
- 22 O.S.2011, § 846
- McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020)
- 22 O.S.2011, § 846
- John Collier, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Memorandum of Explanation (regarding S. 2755), p. 145, hearing before the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, February 27, 1934.
- Felix S. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law (1942)
- Bosse v. State, 2021 OK CR 3, P.3d
- Hogner v. State, 2021 OK CR 4, P.3d
- Krafft v. State, No. F-2018-340 (Okl.Cr., Feb. 25, 2021)
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1451 (2012) - Embezzlement of Building Trust
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 846 (2011) - Stay of Execution
Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:
No Oklahoma administrative rules found.
U.S. Code citations:
No US Code citations found.
Other citations:
No other rule citations found.
Case citations:
- McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020)
- Bosse v. State, 2021 OK CR 3, P.3d
- Hogner v. State, 2021 OK CR 4, P.3d
- Krafft v. State, No. F-2018-340 (Okl.Cr., Feb. 25, 2021)