# State v. Klindt

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · October 30, 1989 · 782 P.2d 401

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9538043

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellant, v. Dick Earl KLINDT, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** October 30, 1989
- **Citations:** 782 P.2d 401; 1989 WL 128612
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Parks
- **Judges:** Brett, Lane, Lumpkin, Parks
- **Cited by:** 31 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9538043

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating general rale that “the State of Oklahoma does not have jurisdiction over crimes committed by or against an Indian in Indian Country”
- holding a defendant has the burden to prove his or her Indian status for dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction
- holding State had no jurisdiction of crime committed by an Indian in Indian Country

## Opinion text

PARKS, Presiding Judge,
concurs in result:
Appellee claims that 18 U.S.C. § 1152 excludes him from the jurisdiction of the State. 18 U.S.C. § 1152 provides:
“Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the general laws of the United States as to the punishment of offenses committed in any place within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, except the District of Columbia, shall extend to the Indian country. This section shall not extend to offenses committed by one Indian against the person or property of another Indian, nor to any Indian committing any offense in the Indian country who has been punished by the local law of the tribe, or to any case where, by treaty stipultions, the exclusive jurisdiction over such offenses is or may be secured to the Indian tribes respectively.”
Appellee is using the exclusionary language of this section as an affirmative defense. The general rule is that once a criminal defendant satisfies his burden or production with respect to an affirmative defense, the prosecution must prove the inapplicability of this defense beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Guess, 629 F.2d 573 , 577 n. 4 (9th Cir.1980).
Appellee should only be required to produce evidence that he is a member of a federally recognized tribe. Thereafter, the ultimate burden or proof remains on the prosecution. See United States v. Hester, 719 F.2d 1041, 1043 (9th Cir.1983). Therefore, I disagree with the majority opinion to the extent that it requires appellee to “establish” that he is an Indian. The ultimate burden or proving appellee’s status rests with the State.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9538043. Public record. Not legal advice.