{ "id": 1552670, "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James PENA, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Pena", "decision_date": "1994-03-11", "docket_number": "No. 14824", "first_page": "528", "last_page": "530", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "117 N.M. 528" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "873 P.2d 274" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.", "id": 9025, "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "117 N.M. 530", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1552711 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/117/0530-01" ] }, { "cite": "116 N.M. 508", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 727709 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/116/0508-01" ] }, { "cite": "806 F.Supp. 1433", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 7411352 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1439" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/806/1433-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 1301", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(2)", "parenthetical": "Supp.Pamp.1993" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "109 L.Ed.2d 698", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "495 U.S. 676", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 633899 ], "weight": 7, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "2056" }, { "page": "698" }, { "page": "2066" }, { "page": "691" }, { "page": "2063" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/495/0676-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 1321", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "105 N.M. 308", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1599007 ], "weight": 6, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "310" }, { "page": "1354" }, { "page": "312" }, { "page": "1356" }, { "page": "310" }, { "page": "1354" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/105/0308-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 335, "char_count": 5165, "ocr_confidence": 0.708, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.714603279856598e-08, "percentile": 0.35851916463083366 }, "sha256": "9dacedaf6532885b37d604fa09513c4f0faf5c7540590b33f6028b9a78fb0daa", "simhash": "1:afe9ae6c599b674b", "word_count": 812 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:10:41.727131+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "MINZNER, C.J., and APODACA, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James PENA, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nPICKARD, Judge.\nThis case presents the question of whether the State has criminal jurisdiction over a Native American accused of committing a crime on another tribe\u2019s reservation. We hold that the State has no such jurisdiction under the circumstances of this case.\nDefendant is,an enrolled member of the San Ildefonso Pueblo. In February 1993, Defendant was stopped by a state patrol officer on State Highway 84r-285, Milepost 173, and was charged with various misdemeanor traffic offenses. Milepost 173 is within the reservation of another tribe, the Tesuque Pueblo. Defendant was cited into state magistrate court.\nThe magistrate court denied Defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the district court, finding jurisdiction over Defendant in state court, granted the State\u2019s motion to dismiss the appeal and ordered the case back to magistrate court for enforcement of its sentence. Defendant appeals to this Court from that order.\n\u201cGenerally, New Mexico lacks jurisdiction to prosecute criminal charges against Indians for offenses committed within the boundaries of an Indian reservation except where such jurisdiction has been specifically granted by Congress or sanctioned by a decision of the United States Supreme Court.\u201d State v. Ortiz, 105 N.M. 308, 310, 731 P.2d 1352, 1354 (Ct.App.1986). Although Congress has given its consent to any state assuming, with the consent of the affected tribe, criminal jurisdiction over Native Americans committing crimes on the tribe\u2019s land, see 25 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 1321(a) (1983), we are not aware of the Tesuque Pueblo\u2019s having given such consent. Nor are we aware of the State\u2019s having elected to assume jurisdiction. See Ortiz, 105 N.M. at 312, 731 P.2d at 1356. In fact, the State concedes on appeal that state courts lack jurisdiction.\nThe district court, however, apparently based its decision on the United States Supreme Court\u2019s opinion in Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676, 110 S.Ct. 2053, 109 L.Ed.2d 698 (1990). In addressing the question of whether a tribe had criminal jurisdiction over a non-member Native American accused of killing a boy on the tribe\u2019s reservation, the Duro Court held that the tribe\u2019s powers to govern its own affairs did not include the authority to impose criminal sanctions against the non-member defendant. Id. at 679, 110 S.Ct. at 2056. However, in addressing the potential jurisdictional problems of its decision, the Court also stated that \u201c[i]f the present jurisdictional scheme proves insufficient to meet the practical needs of reservation law enforcement, then the proper body to address the problem is Congress, which has the ultimate authority over Indian affairs.\u201d Id. at 698, 110 S.Ct. at 2066.\nVery soon after Duro was decided, Congress did in fact address the issue by amending the Indian Civil Rights Act. Specifically, Congress amended the definition of tribal \u201cpowers of self-government\u201d to mean, inter alia, \u201cthe inherent power of Indian tribes, hereby recognized and affirmed, to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians.\u201d 25 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 1301(2) (Supp.Pamp.1993) (emphasis added). We believe it is clear, therefore, that Congress has now specifically granted criminal jurisdiction to a given tribe over all Native Americans committing crimes on its land. We also believe that the amended language effectively overturned the holding in Duro, which was based on \u201cthe view that inherent tribal jurisdiction extends to tribe members only.\u201d Duro, 495 U.S. at 691, 110 S.Ct. at 2063; Mosseaux v. United States Comm\u2019r of Indian Affairs, 806 F.Supp. 1433, 1439 (D.S.D.1992).\nAs there has been no consent given by the Tesuque Pueblo to the State to exercise criminal jurisdiction, as there has been no election by the State to assume jurisdiction over Indian country, and as the Duro decision sanctioning state jurisdiction has been overturned by appropriate legislation, we hold that the State lacks criminal jurisdiction to prosecute Native Americans for offenses they commit on another tribe\u2019s reservation under the facts of this case. See Ortiz, 105 N.M. at 310, 731 P.2d at 1354. We also note, however, that our holding extends only to criminal jurisdiction in accordance with the specific language of Section 1301(2) and not to civil jurisdiction. See New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Dep\u2019t v. Greaves, 116 N.M. 508, 864 P.2d 324 (Ct.App.1993) (state can tax income earned by Native Americans on reservation of tribe of which they are not members); Wacondo v. Concha, 117 N.M. 530, 873 P.2d 276 (Ct.App.1994) (N.M.Ct.App., filed this day)].\nAccordingly, we hold that the State has no criminal jurisdiction over this Defendant. We reverse the district court\u2019s order and remand with instructions to dismiss the charges against Defendant.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nMINZNER, C.J., and APODACA, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PICKARD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Tom Udall, Atty. Gen., Max Shepherd, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee.", "David R. Yepa, Peter C. Chestnut, Ann Berkley Rodgers, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "873 P.2d 274\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James PENA, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 14824.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nMarch 11, 1994.\nTom Udall, Atty. Gen., Max Shepherd, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee.\nDavid R. Yepa, Peter C. Chestnut, Ann Berkley Rodgers, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0528-01", "first_page_order": 564, "last_page_order": 566 }