SPEARS v. STATE

Citation: 485 P.3d 873

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma; April 1, 2021; Oklahoma; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Michael Eugene Spears was convicted of First Degree Murder in the District Court of Rogers County, Case No. CF-2017-1013, and sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. He appeals on several grounds, including jurisdiction, sufficiency of evidence, admission of expert testimony, definition of reasonable doubt, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court finds his jurisdictional challenge compelling, rendering the other claims moot. Spears argues that the State of Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction based on 18 U.S.C. 1153 and the precedent set by McGirt v. Oklahoma, which established federal jurisdiction over certain crimes committed by Indians in Indian country. Following a remand for an evidentiary hearing, the District Court confirmed Spears's status as an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation and that the crime occurred within Cherokee Nation boundaries, thus falling under federal jurisdiction as per the Major Crimes Act. The stipulations made by the parties regarding Spears's Indian status and the crime's location were accepted by the District Court in its findings.

The determination of whether the crime occurred in Indian country hinges on the parties' stipulation that it took place within the historical geographic area of the Cherokee Nation, as defined by treaties. The District Court conducted an in-depth analysis of 19th-century treaties between the Cherokee Nation and the United States, concluding that these treaties established the current boundaries of the Cherokee Nation, as evidenced by the 1833, 1835, 1846, and 1866 treaties. The court recognized that these treaties, similar to those of the Creek Nation, created a reservation for the Cherokee by assuring land and self-governance outside state jurisdiction.

To assess if a reservation remains intact, the court emphasized that congressional intent is paramount, with no specific language required to indicate disestablishment. Historical context illustrates that Congress is capable of withdrawing reservations clearly when intended, typically through explicit references to cession or compensation for tribal lands. The court found that the record did not reflect any congressional intent to disestablish the Cherokee Reservation, and the absence of evidence from the State of Oklahoma supporting such disestablishment led the District Court to affirm the continued existence of the Cherokee Reservation.

For federal criminal law purposes, the land where Spears allegedly committed the crime is deemed part of the Cherokee Reservation, classified as Indian country. The ruling in McGirt necessitates that the District Court of Rogers County lacked jurisdiction over the prosecution of Spears. Consequently, relief is granted based on Proposition 1, resulting in the vacation of the District Court's Judgment and Sentence. The case is remanded with instructions to dismiss. A mandate is ordered to issue within twenty days following this decision. 

The opinions from the trial and appeal stages include various attorneys representing both the defense and the state, with the case overseen by Judge Sheila Condren in the District Court. The document includes a concurrence from Judge Lumpkin, who expresses reluctance about applying the majority opinion in McGirt, suggesting it fails to adhere to judicial precedents and historical context regarding the disestablishment of Indian reservations in Oklahoma. Judges Rowland, Kuehn, Lewis, and Hudson also concur in the results. 

Footnote references indicate the treaties relevant to the Five Tribes share significant similarities, as recognized in prior case law.

The author expresses a conflict between ethical responsibilities and adherence to judicial authority, specifically regarding the application of the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in McGirt v. Oklahoma. They highlight Chief Justice Roberts's dissent, which argues that the majority failed to apply established legal precedents concerning the disestablishment of Indian reservations in Oklahoma. The author contemplates whether to follow the majority opinion uncritically or to recognize the dissenters' critique, which asserts that all parties at the time of Oklahoma's statehood accepted that Indian reservations had been disestablished. The author emphasizes their obligation to uphold the law while acknowledging the dissenters' points about Congressional actions and historical context. They refer to statements from Senators and the Secretary of the Interior that support the idea that significant Indian reservations do not exist in Oklahoma. Ultimately, the author concludes that based on the McGirt precedent, Oklahoma lacks jurisdiction over crimes involving Indians in Indian Country, reaffirming the application of the Major Crimes Act.

Oklahoma lacks jurisdiction over the Appellant in this case, necessitating the reversal and remand for dismissal, as jurisdiction resides with the United States Government. The decision applies the precedent set in *McGirt v. Oklahoma*, confirming that due to the Appellant's Indian status and the murder's occurrence within the Cherokee Reservation's historic boundaries, the State cannot prosecute. The concurring opinion acknowledges the majority's ruling but disputes the assertion that Congress has never disestablished the Cherokee Reservation, noting the State's passive stance has created a legal void impeding proper adjudication of Appellant's claims. The concurrence emphasizes the absence of any abuse of discretion by the trial court based on the presented evidence, while cautioning against establishing the non-disestablishment of the Cherokee Nation as binding precedent. Finally, the concurrence reiterates the significant implications of *McGirt* on Oklahoma's criminal justice system and the necessity for Congressional action to address these issues.