United States v. Smith.
No. 22-2142. 5/7/2024. D.N.M. Judge Carson. Indian Country—Federal Criminal Jurisdiction—Indian Pueblo Land Act Amendments of 2005—Second Degree Murder—Sentence Reduction for Accepting Responsibility.
May 7, 2024
Smith owned and lived at a property located within the exterior boundaries of the Pueblo of Santa Clara (the property), but Smith is not an Indian. Early one morning, Smith saw Gallegos trying to break into a trailer on his property. Smith shot and killed Gallegos and was indicted with second degree murder. He moved to dismiss the case, arguing that (1) the federal district court lacked criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed on his property and (2) Congress acted outside its constitutional authority when it passed the Indian Pueblo Land Act Amendments of 2005 (2005 amendment). The district court denied his motion. A jury convicted Smith of the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter, and the district court sentenced him to 27 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Smith argued that his property is not subject to federal criminal jurisdiction because a non-Indian owns it. Federal criminal jurisdiction exists over crimes committed within “Indian country,” which, as relevant here, includes Pueblo lands. However, while Indian nations and tribes generally cannot convey title to their lands, in the late 1800s Pueblo Indians were allowed to freely transfer title to their land, and 3,000 non-Indians acquired putative title to Pueblo land. Land ownership disputes resulted from these putative titles, so Congress enacted the Pueblo Lands Act of June 7, 1924, which created a procedure for quieting title in such disputes through adverse possession and payment of taxes, with the disputes adjudicated by the Pueblo Lands Board. This procedure allowed pockets of privately owned, non-Indian land to exist surrounded by Pueblo lands, thus creating ambiguity about whether these pockets were in Indian country and thus subject to federal jurisdiction. Congress subsequently clarified the scope of federal jurisdiction under the PLA by passing the 2005 amendment to the PLA, which explained that federal jurisdiction exists over offenses committed anywhere within the exterior boundaries of any grant from a prior sovereign. Under the 2005 amendment, federal courts have criminal jurisdiction if (1) the land is within the exterior boundaries of a grant from a prior sovereign and (2) Congress or the Court of Private Land Claims confirmed the exterior boundaries. Here, it is undisputed that the property is located within the exterior boundary of the Pueblo of Santa Clara; the King of Spain created the Pueblo of Santa Clara by a land grant; and Congress properly patented the property to non-Indian owners under the PLA. Further, Congress confirmed the exterior boundaries of the Pueblo of Santa Clara in the Confirmation Act of December 22, 1858. Accordingly, the property is in Indian country, and Smith’s crime is subject to federal criminal jurisdiction.
Smith also contended that the 2005 amendment reclaimed his property to federal jurisdiction, which was an unconstitutional act. However, the 2005 amendment only exercised preexisting federal jurisdiction over the property and was thus not an unconstitutional enactment as applied to Smith.
Lastly, Smith argued that the district court erred by declining his requested two-level sentence reduction under US Sentencing Guidelines § 3E1.1(a) for accepting responsibility for his crime. A defendant who challenges the factual element of intent is not eligible for the § 3E1.1(a) reduction. Here, Smith challenged the factual element of intent at trial, so the record sufficiently supports the district court’s determination that he did not accept responsibility and, accordingly, the denial of the sentence reduction.
The judgment was affirmed.