Title: State v. Elliott

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
  as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
  Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
  that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                  No. 90-512



  State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

       v.                                      On Appeal from
                                               District Court of Vermont,
  Raleigh Elliott, et al.                      Unit No. 2, Franklin Circuit

                                               October Term, 1991


  Joseph J. Wolchik, J.


  Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, William E. Griffin, Chief Assistant
    Attorney General, and Susan R. Harritt, Assistant Attorney General,
    Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellant

  Gabor Rona of Rubin, Rona, Kidney & Myer, Barre, and Neil Mickenberg of
    Mickenberg, Dunn, Sirotkin & Dorsch, Burlington, for defendants-appellees



  PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson and Morse, JJ., and Barney, C.J. (Ret.) and
            Peck, J., (Ret.), Specially Assigned



       MORSE, J.   Defendants are individuals in a group of thirty-six people
  who were charged with fishing without a license under 10 V.S.A. {{ 4251(a),
  4266.  The cases arose primarily from an October 18, 1987 "fish-in"
  demonstration and were consolidated for trial.  Before trial, defendants
  moved to dismiss based on  the doctrine of "aboriginal rights."   They
  claimed the doctrine prohibited the prosecution of Native Americans if they
  were members of a currently viable Indian tribe which had from "time
  immemorial" continuously occupied the land where the offenses occurred.
  According to defendants, because they held "aboriginal title" to the land,
  they were not subject to state regulation for fishing without a 
  license. (FN1)
       The trial court agreed and dismissed the charges against most of the
  defendants because they were members of the Missisquoi Tribe, a subpart of
  the Western Abenaki Tribe whose aboriginal title had not been extinguished.
  The State took an interlocutory appeal, arguing that the Abenakis (as we
  shall refer to them for purposes of this opinion) are no longer a tribe,
  and, even if they are, any aboriginal title to the land was extinguished by
  governmental action long ago.  We agree that aboriginal rights were
  extinguished and, accordingly, reverse.
                                      I.
       "Aboriginal title" gives members of a viable Native American (FN2) tribe 
  a right of occupancy to lands that is protected against claims by anyone else
  unless the tribe abandons the lands or the sovereign extinguishes the right.
  United States v. Santa Fe Pacific R.R.,