LaBuff

United States v. LaBuff

Good Law
658 F.3d 873·11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 12·2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20722
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 1, 201110-30274California2,918 words

Opinion

Opinion

Paez, J.

The Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153 , provides federal criminal jurisdiction for certain crimes committed by Indians in Indian country. We previously have noted that determining who is an Indian under § 1153 is not easy, as the statute does not define the term “Indian.” United States v. Maggi, 598 F.3d 1073, 1075 (9th Cir.2010) (citing Felix S. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law at 24 (Rennard Strickland et al. ed., 1982)). Our circuit, however, has developed a specific framework for determining whether a person can be prosecuted by the federal government under § 1153. To meet its burden, the government must prove both that the defendant has a sufficient “degree of Indian blood” and has “tribal or government recognition as an Indian.” United States v. Bruce, 394 F.3d 1215, 1223 (9th Cir.2005) (internal quotations omitted).

Gentry Carl LaBuff was charged with robbery and aiding and abetting robbery in Indian country in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 (a) and 2111. A jury convicted LaBuff of these charges following a two-day trial. On appeal, LaBuff contends that the government did not present sufficient evidence to establish that he is an “Indian” for purposes of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.