# State v. Klindt > Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · October 30, 1989 · 782 P.2d 401 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9538044 ## 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 Lumpkin - **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/9538044 ## 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 *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. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9538044. Public record. Not legal advice.