United States v. Ruiz.
No. 24-2128. 1/28/2026. D.N.M. Judge Tymkovich. Sexual Act With a Minor Under Age 12—Non-Indian Status—Sufficiency of Evidence.
January 28, 2026
Ruiz was charged with two counts of engaging in a sexual act with a minor under age 12 within an aggregate seven-year period, in violation of 18 USC §§ 1152, 2241(c), and 2246(2)(D). The indictment alleged that Ruiz was a non-Indian and the victims were Indian. To prove that Ruiz was a non-Indian, the government presented testimony from FBI Special Agent Himel and Jicarilla Apache criminal investigator Wager, who testified that they concluded Ruiz was a non-Indian based on their reviews of certain databases and relevant documents. Following the government’s case, Ruiz moved for a judgment of acquittal for failure to prove his non-Indian status. The court denied the motion based on the witnesses’ testimonies. Ruiz was found guilty of one instance of engaging in a sexual act with a minor under age 12 and sentenced to 30 years of imprisonment, followed by 10 years of supervised release.
On appeal, Ruiz argued that the government’s evidence of his non-Indian status was insufficient as a matter of law. As relevant here, for Ruiz to be convicted under § 1152, the government had to prove that he is not an Indian and his victims are Indians. A person qualifies as an Indian under § 1152 if they have “some Indian blood” and are recognized by a tribe or the federal government as an Indian. And the government can prove that a person is a non-Indian by showing that the person fails either prong. The Tenth Circuit acknowledged that the government’s task “to prove a negative” is difficult and potentially impractical, and it encouraged the Tenth Circuit to reexamine its current case law on the issue that the non-Indian status of the defendant is an element of an offense under § 1152. Nevertheless, here, the government focused on proving that Ruiz is not recognized as an Indian by a tribe or the federal government. But neither witness testified that they knew Ruiz personally, that they knew he was a non-Indian, or that Ruiz ever said he was a non-Indian. Further, there is no evidence that the government asked any tribe about Ruiz’s enrollment status, and the law enforcement databases that the witnesses reviewed do not have information on whether an individual is an enrolled member of a tribe. Additionally, both witnesses concluded Ruiz is a non-Indian at least partly because Ruiz was born in Mexico, but the definition of a recognized Indian does not turn on race. Accordingly, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a rational jury would have to speculate to conclude that Ruiz is a non-Indian. Therefore, the government’s evidence was insufficient.
The conviction was vacated and the case was remanded for further proceedings.