Justin Dale Little v The State Of Oklahoma
F-2020-125
Filed: Jun. 17, 2021
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: Justin Dale Little
Summary
Justin Dale Little appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. Conviction and sentence were vacated. Judge Hudson specially concurred, while Judge Lumpkin dissented in results. In this case, Justin Little was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison by a jury in Oklahoma. However, Little claimed that the state didn't have the right to charge him because he is considered an Indian and the crime took place on Indian land, known as Indian country. The court looked at an important previous ruling called McGirt v. Oklahoma, which said that land for the Muscogee Creek Nation is still recognized as a reservation. Since Little met the criteria of being an Indian and the crime happened in that same reservation area, the court decided that the state didn't have the power to prosecute him. As a result, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ordered that Little's conviction was not valid, and they sent the case back with instructions to dismiss it. This decision was based on the earlier McGirt ruling, which confirmed that federal authorities have the right to deal with such cases, not the state of Oklahoma.
Decision
The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is VACATED and this matter is REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2021), the MANDATE is ORDERED to issue in twenty (20) days from the delivery and filing of this decision.
Issues
- Was there a valid jurisdictional challenge regarding whether Little was an Indian as defined by federal law?
- Did the court determine whether the crime occurred within Indian country as defined by federal law?
- Was the State of Oklahoma found to lack jurisdiction to prosecute Little for first degree murder based on the McGirt ruling?
- Did the parties enter a joint stipulation regarding Little's Indian status and the location of the crime?
- Was the District Court's conclusion that Little is an Indian under federal law supported by the record?
Findings
- the state of Oklahoma was without jurisdiction to prosecute Little
- the charging of first degree murder falls under exclusive federal jurisdiction
- Proposition 1 was granted
- the judgment and sentence of the District Court was vacated
- the matter was remanded with instructions to dismiss
F-2020-125
Jun. 17, 2021
Justin Dale Little
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
OPINION
ROWLAND, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:
Appellant Justin Dale Little was tried by jury and convicted of First Degree Murder, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2012, § 701.7, in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2018-1700. In accordance with the jury’s recommendation, the Honorable Sharon Holmes, District Judge, sentenced Little to life in prison with the possibility of parole. Little raises eight issues for review. This appeal turns on whether Little is an Indian as defined by federal law, and whether the alleged crime was committed within Indian country as that term is defined by federal law. Because the answer to both questions is yes, federal law grants exclusive criminal jurisdiction to the federal government. Because we find relief is required on Little’s jurisdictional challenge in Proposition 1, his other claims are moot.
1. Controlling Law: McGirt v. Oklahoma
In McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. , 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020), the Supreme Court held that land set aside for the Muscogee Creek Nation in the 1800s was intended by Congress to be an Indian reservation, and that this reservation remains in existence today for purposes of federal criminal law because Congress has never explicitly disestablished it.
2. Jurisdiction
Federal and tribal governments, not the State of Oklahoma, have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by or against Indians on the Muscogee Reservation. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152, 1153; McGirt, 140 S.Ct. at 2479-80. The charge of first degree murder filed against Little in this case fits squarely within the crimes subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction.
3. Two Questions Upon Remand
On January 15, 2021, this Court remanded this case to the District Court of Tulsa County for an evidentiary hearing for fact-finding on Little’s claim that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him because he is an Indian and his crime occurred in Indian country. The District Court was directed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on two issues: (a) Little’s status as an Indian; and (b) whether the crime occurred within the boundaries of the Muscogee Reservation. Our Order provided that, if the parties agreed as to what the evidence would show with regard to the questions presented, the parties could enter into a written stipulation setting forth those facts, and no hearing would be necessary. On February 19, 2021, the parties entered a written joint stipulation in which they agreed: (1) that Little has some Indian blood; (2) that he was a registered member of the Seminole Nation on the date of the charged offense; (3) that the Seminole Nation is a federally recognized tribe; and (4) that the charged crime occurred within the boundaries of the Muscogee Reservation. The District Court accepted the parties’ stipulation.
The District Court filed its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in this Court on May 6, 2021. The District Court found the facts recited above in accordance with the stipulation. The District Court concluded that Little is an Indian under federal law and that the charged crime occurred within the boundaries of the Muscogee Reservation. The District Court’s findings and conclusions are supported by the record. The ruling in McGirt governs this case and requires us to find the State of Oklahoma was without jurisdiction to prosecute Little.
Accordingly, we grant Little’s Proposition 1.
DECISION
The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is VACATED and this matter is REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2021), the MANDATE is ORDERED to issue in twenty (20) days from the delivery and filing of this decision.
APPEARANCES AT TRIAL
JASON LOLLMAN
ADAM BARNETT
ASST. PUBLIC DEFENDERS
APPEARANCES ON APPEAL & ON REMAND
ADAM HASELGREN
NICOLE HERRON
TULSA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE
423 S. BOULDER AVE., SUITE 300
TULSA, OK 74103
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
LARRY EDWARDS
MIKE HUNTER
KEVIN KELLER
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
TULSA COUNTY COURTHOUSE
500 S. DENVER, RM. 900
TULSA, OK 74103
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE
ERIK GRAYLESS
FIRST ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
500 S. DENVER, RM. 900
TULSA, OK 74103
COUNSEL FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY
OPINION BY: ROWLAND, V.P.J.
KUEHN, P.J.: Concur
LUMPKIN, J.: Concur in Results
LEWIS, J.: Concur
HUDSON, J.: Specially Concur
Footnotes:
- 21 O.S.Supp.2012, § 701.7
- 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152, 1153
- McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. , 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020)
- State v. Klindt, 1989 OK CR 75, I 3, 782 P.2d 401, 403
- Senator Elmer Thomas, D-Oklahoma, was a member of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. After hearing the Commissioner's speech regarding the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) in 1934, Senator Thomas opined as follows: I can hardly see where it (the IRA) could operate in a State like mine where the Indians are all scattered out among the whites and they have no reservation, and they could not get them into a community without you would go and buy land and put them on it. Then they would be surrounded very likely with thickly populated white sections with whom they would trade and associate. I just cannot get through my mind how this bill can possibly be made to operate in a State of thickly-settled population. (emphasis added). 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.
- Senator Morris Sheppard, D-Texas, also on the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, stated in response to the Commissioner's speech that in Oklahoma, he did not think "we could look forward to building up huge reservations such as we have granted to the Indians in the past." Id. at 157.
- In 1940, in the Foreword to Felix S. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law (1942), Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes wrote in support of the IRA, "[t]he continued application of the allotment laws, under which Indian wards have lost more than two-thirds of their reservation lands, while the costs of Federal administration of these lands have steadily mounted, must be terminated." (emphasis added).
- McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020)
- Bosse v. State, 2021 OK CR 3, 484 P.3d 286 (Hudson, J., Concur in Results)
- Hogner v. State, 2021 OK CR 4, P.3d_ (Hudson, J., Specially Concurs)
- Krafft v. State, No. F-2018-340 (Okl.Cr., Feb. 25, 2021) (Hudson, J., Specially Concurs) (unpublished).
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.7 - First Degree Murder
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 - Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:
No Oklahoma administrative rules found.
U.S. Code citations:
- 18 U.S.C. § 1152 - Offenses committed within Indian country
- 18 U.S.C. § 1153 - Offenses committed by Indians in Indian country
Other citations:
No other rule citations found.
Case citations:
- McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. , 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020)
- State v. Klindt, 1989 OK CR 75, I 3, 782 P.2d 401, 403
- Bosse v. State, 2021 OK CR 3, 484 P.3d 286
- Hogner v. State, 2021 OK CR 4, P.3d_
- Krafft v. State, No. F-2018-340 (Okl.Cr., Feb. 25, 2021)