State v. Settler

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Settler

726 P.2d 410, 81 Or. App. 518, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 3575

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedOctober 8, 1986

Docket83-07-33299; CA A35093; 83-07-33298; CA A35094; 83-07-33295; CA A35095

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 726 P.2d 410 (State v. Settler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Settler, 726 P.2d 410, 81 Or. App. 518, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 3575 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM

Defendants are Yakima Indians. They appeal from judgments convicting them of receiving, possessing and selling food fish out of season. ORS 509.011(2)(a); 506.991(3). They assign error to the trial court’s denial of their motion for judgments of acquittal. We reverse.

Defendants’ primary argument is that the state may not enforce its fishing laws against treaty Indians without alleging and proving a conservation necessity for doing so. We have recently held that the state may not convict a treaty Indian of taking fish out of season or of selling a game animal on ceded land without proving a conservation necessity for imposing the state’s laws in an area which is subject to tribal control. It does not matter whether the Indians’ actions were legal under tribal law; the treaty rights foreclosed the state from acting. State v. Jim (Bruce), 81 Or App 189, 725 P2d 372 (1986); State v. Jim (Warner), 81 Or App 177, 725 P2d 365 (1986). The state did not prove a conservation necessity in this case. The court should have granted the motions for acquittal.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendants are Yakima Indians. They appeal from judgments convicting them of receiving, possessing and selling food fish out of season. ORS 509.011(2)(a); 506.991(3). They assign error to the trial court’s denial of their motion for judgments of acquittal. We reverse.

Defendants’ primary argument is that the state may not enforce its fishing laws against treaty Indians without alleging and proving a conservation necessity for doing so. We have recently held that the state may not convict a treaty Indian of taking fish out of season or of selling a game animal on ceded land without proving a conservation necessity for imposing the state’s laws in an area which is subject to tribal control. It does not matter whether the Indians’ actions were legal under tribal law; the treaty rights foreclosed the state from acting. State v. Jim (Bruce), 81 Or App 189, 725 P2d 372 (1986); State v. Jim (Warner), 81 Or App 177, 725 P2d 365 (1986). The state did not prove a conservation necessity in this case. The court should have granted the motions for acquittal.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

726 P.2d 410, 81 Or. App. 518, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 3575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-settler-orctapp-1986.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack