STATE EX REL OLD ELK v DISTRICT CO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13332 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1976 STATE O M N A A e x r e 1 F OTN SHARON O D ELK, J R . , L Relator, THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE O F MONTANA, i n and f o r t h e County o f Big Horn, and t h e HONORABLE CHARLES T.,UEDKE, P r e s i d i n g Judge, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Moses, Kampfe, T o l l i v c r and W r i g h t , B i l l i n g s , Montana Frank Kampfe a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana F o r Respondent : Hon. R o b e r t L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana John F. North, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a p p e a r e d , Helena, Montana James Seykora, County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d , H a r d i n , Montana Submitted: Decided : - F i l e d : iqj!f!- 8 TBL!;**~A.r!\ t ~.- . i i e s ~ L : :I Clerk A p r i l 8 , 1?76 - JpL 8 1976 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B . Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s a c h a l l e n g e t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , presented t o t h i s Court on a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of supervisory control o r other appropriate w r i t . Relator i s the defendant i n a c r i m i n a l a c t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Big Horn County. R e l a t o r i s an e n r o l l e d member of t h e Crow T r i b e of I n d i a n s and r e s i d e s w i t h i n t h e e x t e r i o r boundaries of t h e Crow I n d i a n Reservation. The Crow T r i b e of I n d i a n s appeared and argued a s Amicus Curiae. O November 27, 1975, a t t h e H i l l t o p Tavern l o c a t e d approxin mately one m i l e west of Hardin, Montana, o u t s i d e t h e e x t e r i o r boundary of t h e Crow I n d i a n Reservation, a shooting occurred i n which one John Matt B e l l was k i l l e d by a h i g h powered r i f l e . The Big Horn County s h e r i f f ' s d e ~ a r t m e n t ~ p u r s u a n t a n to i n v e s t i g a t i o n , had reason t o b e l i e v e t h a t Sharon Old Elk, Jr. was involved i n t h e commission of t h e crime and t h a t h i s v e h i c l e , a green 1971 Plymouth Duster b e a r i n g Big Horn County, Montana, l i c e n s e p l a t e s 22-4259, was a l s o involved and a t t h e time o f t h e homicide t h e c a r of Sharon Old Elk, Jr. was e x t e n s i v e l y damaged on t h e l e f t f r o n t door. Pursuant t o i n v e s t i g a t i o n , a complaint was prepared f o r d e l i b e r a t e homicide, charging Sharon Old Elk, Jr . with t h e crime and was brought b e f o r e t h e Honorable Kenneth Snively , J u s t i c e of t h e Peace a t Hardin, Montana. Sharon Old Elk, Jr. An a r r e s t warrant was i s s u e d f o r one The warrant was d e l i v e r e d t o g e t h e r w i t h a copy of t h e complaint t o S h e r i f f Robert L. Brown. The v e h i c l e b e l i e v e d t o be used during t h e homicide w a s s p o t t e d w i t h i n t h e e x t e r i o r boundaries of t h e Crow I n d i a n Reservation on t r u s t p r o p e r t y owned by George Old Elk 11. The s h e r i f f of Big Horn County proceeded onto t h e Crow I n d i a n Reservation armed w i t h a s t a t e a r r e s t w a r r a n t , and i n t h e presence of a Bureau of I n d i a n A f f a i r s S p e c i a l O f f i c e r proceeded t o t h e Crow I n d i a n T r i b a l Judge, F r e d r i c k Knows H i s Gun. As a m a t t e r of f o r m a l i t y and c o u r t e s y and knowing t h e r e was no formal e x t r a d i t i o n proceedings w i t h i n t h e Crow T r i b e and knowing t h e Crow T r i b e had no e x t r a d i t i o n power o r s t a t u t e , t h e s h e r i f f o f Big Horn County r e q u e s t e d t h e T r i b a l Judge t o i s s u e a t r i b a l c o u r t o r d e r o r s i m i l a r w a r r a n t f o r t h e a r r e s t and apprehension of Sharon Old Elk, Jr. Judge Knows H i s Gun d i d n o t i s s u e such a warrant and i n f a c t r e f u s e d t o do so. S h e r i f f Robert L. Brown t o g e t h e r w i t h o t h e r d e p u t i e s and Bureau of I n d i a n A f f a i r s S p e c i a l O f f i c e r William S n e l l , proceeded t o t h e George Old Elk I1 r e s i d e n c e l o c a t e d approximately t h r e e m i l e s s o u t h of Crow Agency, Montana, which i s l o c a t e d on t r u s t property. S h e r i f f Brown placed r e l a t o r , Sharon Old Elk, J r . , under a r r e s t , pursuant t o t h e s t a t e a r r e s t w a r r a n t , and advised him of h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s , served a copy of t h e warrant and t h e complaint upon r e l a t o r and t r a n s p o r t e d him back t o Big Horn County Courthouse a t Hardin, Montana, where t h e r e l a t o r was a r r a i g n e d b e f o r e Judge Kenneth S n i v e l y , J u s t i c e o f t h e Peace. There i s no f e d e r a l , s t a t e o r Crow I n d i a n s t a t u t e , ordinance o r r e g u l a t i o n a u t h o r i z i n g t h e procedure of e x t r a d i t i o n t o and from an I n d i a n r e s e r v a t i o n w i t h i n t h e e x t e r i o r boundaries of t h e s t a t e of Montana. - 3 - A l l t h e f a c t s n e c e s s a r y t o review t h e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s Court by r e l a t o r have been s t i p u l a t e d and admitted a s evidence by t h e p a r t i e s . R e l a t o r contends t h e f a c t s surrounding h i s a r r e s t c l e a r l y show t h e a r r e s t was i l l e g a l s i n c e it was made pursuant t o a s t a t e a r r e s t w a r r a n t , executed by a s t a t e o f f i c e r , on an I n d i a n person w i t h i n t h e boundaries of an I n d i a n r e s e r v a t i o n . The a r r e s t and subsequent t r a n s p o r t a t i o n of r e l a t o r from t h e r e s e r v a t i o n by t h e s h e r i f f of Big Horn County, e s t a b l i s h a de f a c t o e x t r a d i t i o n procedure which r e l a t o r b e l i e v e s i s i n v a l i d , i l l e g a l and i n v i o l a t i o n of h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s . R e l a t o r h a s c i t e d a l l of t h e recognized c a s e s which e s t a b l i s h t h e unique s t a t u s of t h e American I n d i a n a s a c i t i z e n and t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e I n d i a n and j u r i s d i c t i o n a l powers of t h e t r i b a l government, f e d e r a l government and t h e s t a t e government. Very simply most m a t t e r s w i t h i n t h e e x t e r i o r boundaries of an I n d i a n r e s e r v a t i o n a r e w i t h i n t h e e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e t r i b a l courts o r federal courts unless f a l l i n g specifical2y within t h e s t a t e ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n a s d i r e c t e d o r allowed by an a c t of Congress. There i s no disagreement a s a g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n w i t h t h i s argument of r e l a t o r . R e l a t o r r e l i e s on McClanahan v . S t a t e Tax Commis- s i o n of Arizona, 411 U.S. 164, 93 S.Ct. 1257, 36 L.ed 2d 1 2 9 , 135, f o r the proposition t h a t : "'* * * E s s e n t i a l l y , a b s e n t governing Acts of Congress, t h e q u e s t i o n has always been whether t h e s t a t e a c t i o n i n f r i n g e d on t h e r i g h t of r e s e r v a t i o n I n d i a n s t o make t h e i r own laws and be r u l e d by them.'" Relator then c i t e s a s h i s p r i n c i p a l a u t h o r i t y i n r e l a t i o n t o service of p r o c e s s , a r r e s t o r e x t r a d i t i o n j u r i s d i c t i o n by s t a t e a u t h o r i t i e s over I n d i a n r e s i d e n t s of a r e s e r v a t i o n t h e c a s e of S t a t e o f Arizona ex r e l . M e r r i l l v . T u r t l e , 413 F.2d 683,686 ( 9 t h C i r . 1969). I n T u r t l e , a Cheyenne I n d i a n , who r e s i d e d on t h e Navajo I n d i a n Reservation i n Arizona, was sought by t h e S t a t e of Oklahoma f o r t r i a l on a charge o f second degree f o r g e r y . Oklahoma f i r s t a p p l i e d t o t h e Navajo T r i b a l Council f o r e x t r a d i t i o n of defendant. The Navajo T r i b a l Court r e f u s e d t o e x t r a d i t e , t h e defendant. As a r e s u l t of a r e q u e s t from Oklahoma o f f i c i a l s , t h e Governor of Arizona ordered t h e e x t r a d i t i o n of t h e defendant, pursuant t o Arizona l a w . The s h e r i f f of Apache County, Arizona, executed t h e Arizona Governor's warrant by a r r e s t i n g t h e defendant on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n and c o n f i n i n g him i n t h e t r i b a l j a i l . The Ninth C i r c u i t Court h e l d t h a t Arizona's e x e r c i s e of claimed j u r i s d i c t i o n would c l e a r l y i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e r i g h t s e s s e n t i a l t o t h e I n d i a n ' s self-government. The Ninth C i r c u i t Court reached i t s d e c i s i o n by c o n s i d e r i n g t h e c r i t e r i a o f whether t h e claimed r i g h t by Arizona t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n by means of e x t r a d i t i o n would i n f r i n g e on t h e r i g h t of r e s e r v a t i o n I n d i a n s t o make t h e i r own laws and t o be r u l e d by them o r whether t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of s t a t e a u t h o r i t y t o e x t r a d i t e would i n t e r f e r e w i t h r e s e r v a t i o n self-government. R e l a t o r concludes h i s argument w i t h t h e r e q u e s t t h a t t h i s Court r e g a r d an I n d i a n r e s e r v a t i o n , w i t h i n t h e s t a t e of Montana, a s a co-equal sovereign, such a s o u r 49 s i s t e r s t a t e s . This s i m - p l i f i e s t h e remedy h e r e by a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e Uniform Criminal E x t r a d i t i o n A c t , s e c t i o n s 95-3101 through 95-3136, R.C.M. 1947. T h i s proposal may have a n a p p e a l i n g r i n g t h e f i r s t time around, however, i t would t a k e a g r e a t d e a l more from our I n d i a n c i t i z e n s than i t would bestow, i f i n f a c t we had t h e power t o do s o , which i n f a c t we do n o t . W a g r e e w i t h t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t i n t h e absence of governing e a c t s of Congress, t h e q u e s t i o n has always been whether s t a t e a c t i o n - 5 - i n f r i n g e d on t h e r i g h t of r e s e r v a t i o n I n d i a n s t o make t h e i r own laws and t o be r u l e d by them. W d i s a g r e e w i t h r e l a t o r ' s a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e T u r t l e e c a s e t o t h e i n s t a n t f a c t s t o demonstrate an i n t e r f e r e n c e i n t h e r i g h t of t h e I n d i a n s t o make t h e i r own laws and be governed by them. I n T u r t l e t h e s i t u a t i o n i s analogous t o t h e q u e s t i o n b e f o r e us however, t h e one Cmportant e x c e p t i o n i s t h a t t h e Navajo T r i b e of I n d i a n s had adopted a r e s o l u t i o n i n r e g a r d t o an e x t r a d i t i o n proceeding. The Court s t a t e d : " I n 1956 t h e Navajo T r i b a l Council, t h e t r i b a l l e g i s l a t i v e body, adopted a Resolution providing procedures f o r I n d i a n e x t r a d i t i o n . While t h i s t r i b a l e x t r a d i t i o n law by i t s terms s p e c i f i c a l l y provides f o r e x t r a d i t i o n o n l y t o t h e s t a t e s of Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico, i t h a s been approved by t h e Commissioner f o r I n d i a n A f f a i r s a s provided f o r by f e d e r a l law and i s now p a r t of t h e Navajo S e c t i o n s 1841-42. The T r i b e T r i b a l Code. 17 N.T.C., h a s thus c o d i f i e d and does now e x e r c i s e i t s e x t r a d i t i o n power. This power cannot now be assumed by o r shared w i t h t h e S t a t e of Arizona without ' i n f r i n g [ i n g ] on t h e r i g h t of r e s e r v a t i o n I n d i a n s t o make t h e i r own laws and be r u l e d by them.' Williams v. Lee, supra a t p. 220 of 358 U.S., a t p. 271 of 79 S.Ct." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . The Crow T r i b e of I n d i a n s had no e x t r a d i t i o n code a t any time p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s m a t t e r and hence T u r t l e would n o t apply. F u r t h e r , t h e New Mexico Supreme Court reviewed T u r t l e i n S t a t e S e c u r i t i e s , I n c . v. Anderson, 84 N.M. 629, 506 P.2d 786, 788, wherein i t h e l d t h a t t h e s t a t e c o u r t could o b t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n over I n d i a n defendants by i s s u i n g and s e w i n g process upon them w h i l e they were on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n . It i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h e New Mexico Supreme Court i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t had made a survey of t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l q u e s t i o n and s t a t e d : " I n an attempt t o determine whether I n d i a n immunity from process i s necessary i n t h i s case t o protect the r i g h t of r e s e r v a . t i o n I n d i a n s t o make t h e i r own laws and be ruled by them, we have surveyed a number of cases and other authorities. According to some court decisions some powers reserved to Indians for their exclusive jurisdiction, and which may therefore be necessary for Indian self-government, are: jurisdiction to try an offense committed on the reservation by or against an Indian, Williams v. United States, 327 U.S. 711, 66 S.Ct. 778, 90 L ed. 962 (1946); extradition powers, if a tribe has codified and exercises its own extradition law, Arizona ex rel. Merrill v. Turtle, 413 F.2d 683 (9th.Cir. 1969), cert. denied 396 U.S. 1003, 90 S.Ct. 551, 24 L.Ed.2d 494-(1970) * *.I1 (Emphasis supplied.) * The New Mexico Supreme Court agrees with this Court's interpretation of Turtle in that the tribe must first have codified and exercised its own extradition laws before the rule in Turtle would apply. Further, this Court in Bad Horse v. Bad Horse, 163 Mont. 445, 451, 452, 517 P.2d 893, in a related matter involving service of process within the exterior boundaries of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, said: "Art. 111, Sec. 6 of the 1889 Montana Constitution provides : "'Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury of person, property or character; and that right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.' "Section 83-102, R.C .M. 1947, concerning jurisdiction provides : "'The sovereignty and jurisdiction of this state extend to all places within its boundaries, as established by the constitution, excepting such places as are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.' "Service was obtained pursuant to Rule 4, Montana Rules of Civil Procedure. Once the district court has assumed jurisdiction over the subject matter and process has been properly served, the defendant cannot throw up a shield around herself by claiming that the state process server cannot pierce the exterior boundaries of an Indian reservation and serve civil process therein. "In the instant case the marriage 'contract' took place off the reservation. There has been no preemption by the federal government which could prevent the transfer of jurisdiction to the state. There is no disclaimer made and there is no infringement on the right of the tribe to govern itself. Indian country is not a federal enclave off limits to state process servers. Service of process extends to an Indian defendant served within the Fort Peck Reservation. State Securities, Inc. v. Anderson, 84 N.M. 629, 506 P.2d 786. "The myth of Indian sovereignty has pervaded judicial attempts by state courts to deal with contemporary Indian problems. Such rationale must yield to the realities of modern life, both on and off the reservation. As Judge Russell Smith recently observed in United States v. Blackfeet Tribe, (D.C.Mont.), 364 F.Supp. 192, 194: "'The blunt fact, however, is that an Indian Tribe is sovereign to the extent that the United States permits it to be sovereign---neither more nor less. 1 "Only by throwing off\the strictures of 'Indian sovereignty can state courts enter the arena and meet the problems of the modern Indian. If Congress and the federal appellate cnurts have a better solution, let them come forward." This Court in Bad Horse also relied on Anderson, the New Mexico case discussed heretofore. Relator terminates his petition before this Court with this final plea: "CONCLUSION: This Honorable Court should take jurisdiction hereof and grant relator relief under an appropriate writ. The matter of the protection of an individual's constitutionally guaranteed right to due process of law, as well as a definitive declaration of the jurisdictional authority and power of the State of Montana in regard to Indian reservations within its boundaries, are of great public 'nterest and directly affect the impartial and effective maintenance of Justice and the public's confidence in and respect for the courts. There is no other appeal or other adequate or speedy remedy at law available to the relator for the disposition of this issue." (Emphasis supplied.) Individual rights, due process, impartial and effective maintenance of justice and the public conhidence in and respect for the courts are paramount in the resolution of these kind of matters. However, these rights and duties afe owed to all citizens n o t only t h o s e r e s i d i n g w i t h i n t h e e x t e r i o r boundaries o f an Indian reservation. The c i t i z e n s of Montana g e n e r a l l y and Big Horn County p a r t i c u l a r l y would be g r o s s l y deprived i f under t h e g u i s e of i n d i v i d u a l due process they n o t only had no speedy, adequate, remedy b u t p o s i t i o n of r e l a t o r . no remedy a t a l l . This i n e f f e c t i s the The f e d e r a l a u t h o r i t i e s have no j u r i s d i c - t i o n pursuant t o 18 U.S.C. 5 5 1151 through 1165, a s t h e crime was n o t committed i n I n d i a n country a s d e f i n e d i n 18 U.S.C. 5 1151. Here, we do n o t have t h e s i t u a t i o n t o meet t h e requirements of Unlawful F l i g h t t o Avoid P r o s e c u t i o n , 18 U.S.C. $1073. Tribal Judge F r e d e r i c k Knows His Gun had no a u t h o r i t y t o e x t r a d i t e o r under T i t l e 25, Code of F e d e r a l Regulations, t o apprehend r e l a t o r on b e h a l f of t h e s t a t e of Montana f o r t h e crime of d e l i b e r a t e homicide. Finding no i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h t r i b a l self-government and t h a t t h e s t a t e of Montana proceeded under t h e only remedy a v a i l a b l e ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.