State v. Hagen

Utah Supreme Court

State v. Hagen

858 P.2d 925, 1992 WL 166150

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 18, 1992

Docket910017

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 858 P.2d 925 (State v. Hagen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Hagen, 858 P.2d 925, 1992 WL 166150 (Utah 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

DURHAM, Justice:

Defendant Robert Hagen pleaded guilty in Eighth District Court to distributing a controlled substance, a third degree felony under Utah Code Ann. § 58 — 37—8(l)(b)(ii) (Supp.1991). The plea affidavit stated that defendant sold marijuana from his residence in Myton, Duchesne County, Utah. Prior to sentencing, defendant moved to arrest judgment and to withdraw his guilty plea. In his motion, he challenged the court’s jurisdiction ón the basis that he was an Indian and his alleged crime occurred in Indian country, the Uintah-Ouray Reservation, and was thus not subject to state court jurisdiction. Federal law provides for exclusive federal jurisdiction over a defendant who is an American Indian and who commits a criminal offense in Indian country. 1 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152, 1153 (1988). The court denied the motion. Defendant subsequently appealed the conviction to the Utah Court of Appeals. The court of appeals reversed defendant’s conviction, holding that a 1985 Tenth Circuit decision had conclusively determined that Myton was in Indian country and holding that the State had failed to meet its burden of disproving defendant’s personal Indian status. We issued a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the court of appeals.'

We conclude that the court of appeals erred in treating Myton as Indian country. This court’s opinion today in State v. Per *926 ank, 858 P.2d 927 (Utah 1992), establishes that for purposes of criminal jurisdiction, Myton, Utah, is not in Indian country. See id. at 934 n. 10; id. at 953. In Perank, we held that 1902 and 1905 congressional acts diminished the original Uintah Indian Reservation boundaries and that subsequent homesteading and settlement therefore occurred on lands restored to the public domain. See id. at 934, 941-946. We concluded that Myton, Utah, where defendant’s alleged criminal conduct occurred, is therefore not in Indian country. See id. at 953. Thus, in the instant case defendant’s criminal conduct in Myton may form the basis of state court jurisdiction, regardless of defendant’s personal Indian status. We therefore reverse the decision of the court of appeals and reinstate defendant’s conviction.

Reversed.

HALL, C.J., and HOWE, Associate C.J., and STEWART, J., concur. ZIMMERMAN, J., dissents.

1

. There are certain exceptions to this general grant of jurisdiction. These exceptions, however, are not relevant to the disposition of this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DURHAM, Justice:

Defendant Robert Hagen pleaded guilty in Eighth District Court to distributing a controlled substance, a third degree felony under Utah Code Ann. § 58 — 37—8(l)(b)(ii) (Supp.1991). The plea affidavit stated that defendant sold marijuana from his residence in Myton, Duchesne County, Utah. Prior to sentencing, defendant moved to arrest judgment and to withdraw his guilty plea. In his motion, he challenged the court’s jurisdiction ón the basis that he was an Indian and his alleged crime occurred in Indian country, the Uintah-Ouray Reservation, and was thus not subject to state court jurisdiction. Federal law provides for exclusive federal jurisdiction over a defendant who is an American Indian and who commits a criminal offense in Indian country. 1 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152, 1153 (1988). The court denied the motion. Defendant subsequently appealed the conviction to the Utah Court of Appeals. The court of appeals reversed defendant’s conviction, holding that a 1985 Tenth Circuit decision had conclusively determined that Myton was in Indian country and holding that the State had failed to meet its burden of disproving defendant’s personal Indian status. We issued a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the court of appeals.'

We conclude that the court of appeals erred in treating Myton as Indian country. This court’s opinion today in State v. Per *926 ank, 858 P.2d 927 (Utah 1992), establishes that for purposes of criminal jurisdiction, Myton, Utah, is not in Indian country. See id. at 934 n. 10; id. at 953. In Perank, we held that 1902 and 1905 congressional acts diminished the original Uintah Indian Reservation boundaries and that subsequent homesteading and settlement therefore occurred on lands restored to the public domain. See id. at 934, 941-946. We concluded that Myton, Utah, where defendant’s alleged criminal conduct occurred, is therefore not in Indian country. See id. at 953. Thus, in the instant case defendant’s criminal conduct in Myton may form the basis of state court jurisdiction, regardless of defendant’s personal Indian status. We therefore reverse the decision of the court of appeals and reinstate defendant’s conviction.

Reversed.

HALL, C.J., and HOWE, Associate C.J., and STEWART, J., concur. ZIMMERMAN, J., dissents.

1

. There are certain exceptions to this general grant of jurisdiction. These exceptions, however, are not relevant to the disposition of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

858 P.2d 925, 1992 WL 166150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hagen-utah-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack