stating general rale that “the State of Oklahoma does not have jurisdiction over crimes committed by or against an Indian in Indian Country”
How later courts described this case
- stating general rale that “the State of Oklahoma does not have jurisdiction over crimes committed by or against an Indian in Indian Country”
- overruling Ex Parte Nowabbi, 60 Okla.Crim. 111, 61 P.2d 1139 (App.1936) and holding State of Oklahoma never assumed criminal and civil jurisdiction over any “Indian country” within its borders
- holding a defendant has the burden to prove his or her Indian status for dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction
- “There is ample evidence to indicate that the Nowabbi Court misinterpreted the statutes and cases upon which it based its opinion. ... Nowabbi is hereby overruled.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*405 LUMPKIN, Judge,
specially concurring.
I concur with the Court’s decision in this case and write to address the factors which must be considered by the trial court in determining if Appellant is an Indian under federal law.
This Court has set forth two elements which must be satisfied before the status of an individual can be determined. See Goforth v. State, 644 P.2d 114 (Okl.Cr.1982). In Goforth the Court held that the Appellant must establish (1) that he has a significant percentage of Indian blood, and (2) he must be recognized as an Indian either by the federal government or by some tribe or society of Indians. 644 P.2d at 116 . This burden of proof must be met by the person seeking to claim the status.