Here is the court’s decision in State v. Cruz from last October (and it appears the New Mexico Supreme Court will hear this one), rejecting t a non-Indian’s claim that her crimes allegedly occurred on Indian lands.
An excerpt:
Defendant contends that the district court lacked criminal jurisdiction over her because the alleged crimes were committed against Indians in Indian country. It is undisputed that Defendant is not a member of an Indian tribe; however, she notes that Mulvaney delivered the checks to the laborers/payees on Indian land and argues that, because the crimes occurred on Indian land, prosecution is within the jurisdiction of the tribal court. See generally Dick, 1999 NMCA 62, P 7 (recognizing the general principle that a state has no jurisdiction over crimes committed by or against an Indian in “Indian country” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
We disagree because the evidence does not establish that all of the elements of the crime took place on Indian land. See State v. Clark, 2000 NMCA 52, PP 5-7, 129 N.M. 194, 3 P.3d 689 (holding that the district court had jurisdiction to try a Native American defendant for the crimes of larceny and conspiracy when the crimes were initiated within Indian country but continued outside the boundaries of Indian country into New Mexico). Milo’s is located in McKinley County. In addition, the checks were initially signed by Defendant in Albuquerque and delivered to Mulvaney at some point approximately halfway between Albuquerque and the construction site on the Zuni Indian Reservation. This evidence shows that at least some of the elements of the crimes took [**6] place in either Bernalillo County or McKinley County in locations that were not in Indian country. Therefore, New Mexico had jurisdiction to prosecute Defendant for these crimes.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.