United States v. King.
No. 25-5014. 4/21/2026. N.D.Okla. Judge Matheson. Multiplicitous Charges—Status as Indian or Non-Indian—Sufficiency of Evidence.
April 21, 2026
King sexually abused and assaulted his girlfriend’s minor daughter M.V. over the course of approximately four years. After M.V. reported the abuse, in 2023 the State of Oklahoma charged King in state court as a non-Indian under Oklahoma law for his abuse of M.V., and the Cherokee Nation charged King in tribal court as an Indian for the same abuse. King moved to dismiss the Oklahoma prosecution, arguing that the state court lacked jurisdiction because he was an Indian. He also moved to dismiss the Cherokee Nation prosecution, arguing that he was not an Indian. In 2024, King was indicted in federal court with two sets of alternate charges: counts 1 and 2 charged King as a non-Indian with an Indian victim under 18 USC § 1152; counts 3 and 4 charged him with the same crimes as an Indian under 18 USC § 1153. King moved to dismiss the indictment for multiplicity or to require the government to elect charges. The district court denied the motion, ruling that the charges were permissible if they did not result in multiplicitous convictions, which could be avoided by using an appropriate jury instruction. The district court also denied King’s motions for judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29. A jury found King guilty of counts 1 and 2, and he was sentenced to life in prison followed by a life term of supervised release.
On appeal, King argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove that M.V. was an Indian. Section 1152 applies only if the defendant was a non-Indian and the victim was an Indian, or vice versa, so the Indian and non-Indian statuses of the defendant and victim are essential elements of a § 1152 offense. To find that a person is an Indian, the fact finder must first find that the person has Indian blood and a tribe or the federal government recognizes the person as an Indian. First, the parties agreed that M.V. has some Indian blood. Second, a rational jury could find that (1) M.V. received health care from Cherokee Nation Health Services based on her mother’s enrollment as a Cherokee, (2) the Cherokee Nation conducted M.V.’s guardianship proceedings, and (3) M.V. enrolled in the Cherokee Nation and holds herself out as an Indian. And based on these findings, a rational jury could find that M.V. was an Indian when the abuse occurred.
King also argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he was a non-Indian. Under § 1152, the government needed to prove that King was a non-Indian by proving that he lacked Indian blood or federal or tribal recognition as an Indian. Here, based on the testimonial evidence, a reasonable jury could find that King lacked Indian blood. Further, King enrolled in the Delaware Tribe of Indians after the abuse. A jury could have inferred that King attempted to use his Delaware Tribe enrollment as a jurisdictional defense in the state prosecution, despite having no Delaware Tribe blood quantum. And the jury also could have inferred that King had no blood as to any another tribe because he chose to attempt to enroll in the Delaware Tribe.
King further contended that the district court erred on the multiplicity issue. Under United States v. Bolt, 776 F.2d 1463, 1467 (10th Cir. 1985), a district court has discretion to choose between the prosecutor’s election of counts before trial or the use of jury instructions to remedy multiplicitous charges. Here, the district court used adequate safeguards to prevent multiplicitous convictions by instructing the jury that it could not convict King as both an Indian and a non-Indian; and by providing the jury with a special verdict form directing them to (1) acquit King entirely, (2) convict him as an Indian, or (3) convict him as a non-Indian. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion.
The convictions were affirmed.