Stewart Wayne Coffman v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2018-1268

Filed: Aug. 26, 2021

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State of Oklahoma

Summary

Stewart Wayne Coffman appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. The conviction and sentence were reversed, and the case was remanded to the District Court to be dismissed. Judge Hudson specially concurred, noting the importance of the McGirt decision in this case. In simpler terms, Stewart Coffman was found guilty of a serious crime, but later argued that he shouldn’t have been tried in state court because the victim was part of an Indian tribe and the crime happened on tribal land. The court agreed with Coffman, saying the state did not have the right to prosecute him, and therefore, his conviction was overturned.

Decision

The Judgments and Sentences are 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 District Court's ability to try Appellant based on the Indian status of the victim and the location of the crime?
• Did the evidentiary hearing establish that the victim was recognized as an Indian and that the crime occurred within Indian Country?
• Did the District Court abuse its discretion in its findings regarding the victim's Indian status and the crime's location?
• Was there a valid argument presented by the State concerning concurrent jurisdiction between the state and federal governments?
• Did the decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma affect the state's jurisdiction to prosecute Appellant for his crime?

Findings

• the court erred
• evidence was sufficient
• the State did not have jurisdiction
• the case was remanded with instructions to dismiss

F-2018-1268

Aug. 26, 2021

Stewart Wayne Coffman

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LUMPKIN, JUDGE: Appellant Stewart Wayne Coffman was tried by jury and convicted of First Degree Manslaughter (21 O.S.2011, § 711), After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies in the District Court of McCurtain County, Case No. CF-2017-0301. In accordance with the jury’s recommendation the Honorable Michael DeBerry, District Judge, sentenced Appellant to forty (40) years in prison. Appellant appeals from this conviction and sentence.

In Proposition I of his appellate brief, Appellant claims the District Court lacked jurisdiction to try him. Appellant argues that while he is not Indian, his victim, Joe Battiest, Jr. was a citizen of the Choctaw Nation and the crime occurred within the boundaries of the Choctaw Nation. Pursuant to the recent decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020) Appellant’s claim raises two separate questions: (a) the Indian status of the victim, Joe Battiest, and (b) whether the crime occurred in Indian Country.

These issues require fact-finding. We therefore remanded this case to the District Court of McCurtain County for an evidentiary hearing to be held within sixty (60) days from the date of this Order. Recognizing the historical and specialized nature of this remand for evidentiary hearing, we request 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 the 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 subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court was ordered to determine whether the victim had some Indian blood and was recognized as an Indian by a tribe or the federal government, and whether the crime occurred in Indian Country. The District Court was directed to follow the analysis set out in McGirt to determine: (1) whether Congress established a reservation for the Choctaw Nation; and (2) if so, whether Congress specifically erased those boundaries and disestablished the reservation. In so doing, the District Court was directed to consider any evidence the parties provided, 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 with regard to 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.

An Order was timely filed with this Court by the Honorable Michael DeBerry, District Judge, stating that an evidentiary hearing had been held pursuant to this Court’s remand order. The District Court’s Order states that appearing before the court were attorneys from the office of the Attorney General of Oklahoma, the McCurtain County District Attorney’s Office, defense counsel, and the Choctaw Nation. The order states that the District Attorney, defense counsel, and the Attorney General’s Office entered into a stipulation, attached to the Order as Exhibit 1. This Exhibit states that the parties stipulate to the following: The victim, Joe Battiest, had 11/16 degree of Indian blood of the Choctaw/Mississippi Choctaw Tribe and was a member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (Membership Number CN 183977) at the time of the crime. The Choctaw Nation is an Indian Tribal Entity recognized by the federal government.

Regarding the location of the crime, the stipulation provides: The crime in this case occurred at 509 NE 4th St., in Idabel, McCurtain County, Oklahoma. This location is within the historical boundaries of the Choctaw Nation – boundaries set forth in, and adjusted by, the 1855 and 1866 treaties between the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations and the United States.

Based upon Exhibit 1, the District Court found that the victim, Joe Battiest, Jr., is 11/16th degree of Indian blood of the Choctaw/Mississippi Choctaw Tribe and is a tribal member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (Membership Number CN 183977). The District Court further found the crime occurred at 509 NE 4th St., in Idabel, McCurtain County, Oklahoma, which was within the boundaries of the Choctaw Nation as evidenced by a map attached to the order as Exhibit 2. The court further found there was no evidence presented that Congress has ever explicitly erased those boundaries and disestablished the reservation.

In a supplemental brief filed after the remanded McGirt hearing, Appellant argues this Court should affirm the findings of the District Court, applying an abuse of discretion standard of review. Appellant asserts the factual findings and legal conclusions are supported by the evidence and the law. The State also filed a supplemental brief. The State asserts that it takes no position as to the existence of a Choctaw Reservation, but argues even if the existence of the Choctaw Reservation is assumed, the State has concurrent jurisdiction with the federal government to prosecute Appellant.

The State argues that 18 U.S.C. § 1152, the General Crimes Act, does nothing to preempt state jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-Indians like that perpetrated by Appellant. The State further argues that should this Court find Appellant is entitled to relief, this Court should stay any order reversing the conviction for thirty (30) days to allow the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Oklahoma to secure custody of Appellant. Additionally, this Court granted Appellant’s request to file a supplemental brief addressing the State’s claim of concurrent jurisdiction. In that supplemental brief, Appellant argues that this Court has rejected a claim of concurrent jurisdiction in Bosse v. State, 2021 OK CR 3.

After thorough consideration of the arguments and the entire record before us on appeal including the original record, transcripts, and briefs of the parties, we find that under the law and the evidence relief is warranted. Under the record before us, we find the District Court did not abuse its discretion and its findings are supported by the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing. We find Appellant has met his burden of showing that his victim, Joe Battiest, Jr., is 11/16th degree of Indian blood of the Choctaw/Mississippi Choctaw Tribe and is a tribal member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (Membership Number CN 183977). We further find Appellant has met his burden of showing that the crime occurred within the boundaries of the Choctaw Nation and that no evidence has been presented that Congress has ever explicitly erased those boundaries and disestablished the Choctaw reservation.

Further, this Court addressed and rejected an argument concerning concurrent jurisdiction between the state and federal governments in Bosse. The State’s argument in the present case is similar and we find it is not persuasive. We therefore find that pursuant to McGirt, the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute Appellant in this matter.

The Judgments and Sentences in this case are hereby reversed and the case remanded to the District Court of McCurtain County with instructions to dismiss the case.

DECISION

The Judgments and Sentences are 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.

AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF McINTOSH COUNTY THE HONORABLE MICHAEL DeBERRY, DISTRICT JUDGE

APPEARANCES IN DISTRICT COURT

MICHAEL D. MOREHEAD
OKLA. INDIGENT DEFENSE
P.O. BOX 926
NORMAN, OK 73070
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

MARK MATLOFF
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
IDABEL, OK

TESSA L. HENRY
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
313 N.E. 21ST ST.
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE

JACOB KEYES
COUNSEL FOR THE CHOCTAW NATION
DURANT, OK

OPINION BY: LUMPKIN, J.

ROWLAND, P.J.: Concur

HUSDON, V.P.J.: Specially Concurring

LEWIS, J.: Concur in Results

HUDSON, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE, SPECIALLY CONCURS: Today’s decision applies McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020) to the facts of this case and dismisses a conviction from McCurtain County for first degree manslaughter. I concur in the results of the majority’s opinion based on the stipulations below concerning the victim’s Indian status and the location of this crime within the historic boundaries of the Choctaw Reservation. Under McGirt, the State cannot prosecute Appellant because of the Indian status of the victims and the location of this crime within Indian Country as defined by federal law. I therefore as a matter of stare decisis fully concur in today’s decision.

I also join Presiding Judge Rowland’s observation in his special writing in Hogner v. State, that the Major Crimes Act does not affect the State of Oklahoma’s subject matter jurisdiction in criminal cases but, rather, involves the exercise of federal criminal jurisdiction to effectively preempt the exercise of similar state authority.

Finally, I maintain my previously expressed views on the significance of McGirt, its far-reaching impact on the criminal justice system in Oklahoma and the need for a practical solution by Congress.

LEWIS, JUDGE, CONCURRING IN RESULTS: Based on my special writings in Bosse v. State and Hogner v. State, I concur in results in the decision to dismiss this case for the lack of state jurisdiction.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 711
2. McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020)
3. Goforth v. State, 1982 OK CR 48, ¶ 6, 644 P.2d 114, 116
4. United States v. Diaz, 679 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2012)
5. United States v. Prentiss, 273 F.3d 1277, 1280-81 (10th Cir. 2001)
6. 22 O.S. 2011 § 846
7. Bosse v. State, 2021 OK CR 3, ¶¶ 23-28, 484 P.3d at 294-295
8. State v. Delso, 2013 OK CR 5, ¶ 5, 298 P.3d 1192, 1194
9. Hogner v. State, 2021 OK CR 4, _P.3d_
10. Krafft v. State, No. F-2018-340 (Okl.Cr., Feb. 25, 2021) (unpublished)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 711 - First Degree Manslaughter
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 846 - Stay of Order for Thirty Days
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 - Concurrent Jurisdiction

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1152 - General Crimes Act

Other citations:

No other rule citations found.

Case citations:

• Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19, I 36, 422 P.3d 788, 799-800
• McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020)
• Goforth v. State, 1982 OK CR 48, IT 6, 644 P.2d 114, 116
• United States v. Diaz, 679 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2012)
• United States v. Prentiss, 273 F.3d 1277, 1280-81 (10th Cir. 2001)
• Bosse v. State, 2021 OK CR 3, 484 P.3d 286
• State v. Delso, 2013 OK CR 5, IT 5, 298 P.3d 1192, 1194
• Hogner v. State, 2021 OK CR 4, _P.3d_
• Krafft v. State, No. F-2018-340 (Okl.Cr., Feb. 25, 2021)