Title: State v. Cameron

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

STATE_V_CAMERON.93-512; 163 Vt 626; 658 A.2d 939

[Filed 24-Mar-1995]


                               ENTRY ORDER

                        SUPREME COURT DOCKET NOS.
      93-512, 94-008, 94-011, 94-012, 94-013, 94-028, 94-132, 94-134, 94-216

                             JANUARY TERM, 1995


State of Vermont                     }          APPEALED FROM:
                                     }          District Court of Vermont,
     v.                              }          Unit No. 2, Franklin Circuit

David W. Cameron                     }          DOCKET NOS. 400-3-89FCr,
                                     }          447-5-89FCr, 448-4-89FCr,
                                     }          543-4-89FCr and 553-4-89FCr

Gary Lafar                           }          DOCKET NO. 1705-10-89FrCr

Harold St. Francis                   }          DOCKET NOS. 1537-10-92FrCr
                                     }           and 1261-9-92FrCr

David A. Bruyette, Jr.               }          DOCKET NO. 1428-9-88FCr

Robert Richard                       }          DOCKET NO. 1867-12-88FCr

Tammy St. Francis                    }          DOCKET NO. 876-6-89FCr
                                     }          and 1937-10-91FCr

Rose A. Richard                      }          DOCKET NO. 371-2-91FrCr

Todd A. Thomas                       }          DOCKET NOS. 205-3-93FrCr,
                                     }           610-4-91FrCr, 51-1-90FrCr
                                     }           and 496-4-92FrCr

Richard St. Francis                  }          DOCKET NO. 1080-6-91FrCr


                     In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

         This case is a consolidation of appeals by nine defendants claiming
membership in the Abenaki Tribe.  Two challenges to the State's jurisdiction
to prosecute defendants are raised. The first issue, whether the Abenaki
Tribe enjoys "Indian Country" status as a "dependent Indian community," was
not briefed on appeal, and it need not be addressed.  See State v. Towne, 158
Vt. 607, 622, 615 A.2d 484, 492 (1992) (passing reference constitutes
inadequate briefing); State v. Lynaugh, 158 Vt. 72, 76 n.2, 604 A.2d 785, 787
n.2 (1992) (declining to reach inadequately briefed issues in consolidated
DUI cases). 

         Defendants' second argument challenges our holding in State v.
Elliott, 159 Vt. 102, 616 A.2d 210 (1992), that Abenaki aboriginal rights
were extinguished by 1791, when Vermont became the fourteenth state.  Id. at
121, 616 A.2d  at 221.  Essentially, defendants argue that because Elliott was
decided as a matter of historical fact, it has no preclusive effect on
nonparties to that appeal.  Defendants mischaracterize  the legal effect of
Elliott.  Our holding in that case was made as a matter of law based on
historical fact.  Consequently, under the doctrine of stare decisis, Elliott
is precedent binding in general, not just binding on parties to 

 

the original case.  See Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Trabucco, 791 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1986) (stare decisis not narrowly confined to parties and
privies, its broad impact reaches strangers to earlier litigation); United
States v. 177.51 Acres of Land., 716 F.2d 78, 81 (1st Cir. 1983) (stare
decisis invoked to prevent successive lawsuits by landowners not parties to
original suit); see also 1B J. Moore, J. Lucas, and T. Corrier, Moore's
Federal Practice  0.401 (2d ed. 1994) (impact of stare decisis reaches
strangers to litigation). 

         Although defendants note that the Elliott decision has been
criticized for relying on a "controversial interpretation of history,"
defendants have not raised issues of historical fact that cause us to doubt
our interpretation or to overrule the decision.  At the trial level, one
defendant's "offer of proof" suggested that the area where the Elliott crimes
occurred was not occupied by white settlers by 1791.  This historical fact,
even if we considered it to be true, would not diminish this Court's holding
in Elliott.  Elliott affects all lands within Vermont's boundaries.  See
Elliott, 159 Vt. at 119, 616 A.2d  at 220 (Congress intended cession of
Missisquoi territory up to latitude of forty-five degrees north). 

         Affirmed. 







                                   BY THE COURT:


                                   ________________________________________
                                   Frederic W. Allen, Chief Justice


                                   ________________________________________
                                   Ernest W. Gibson III, Associate Justice


                                   ________________________________________
                                   James L. Morse, Associate Justice


                                   ________________________________________
                                   David A. Jenkins, Superior Judge
                                   Specially Assigned

                                   ________________________________________
                                   Mary Miles Teachout, Superior Judge
                                   Specially Assigned

[ ] Publish

[ ] Do Not Publish