Opinion ID: 1969489
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: does the state of south dakota have jurisdiction over the criminal charges against st. cloud?

Text: As previously stated, St. Cloud was originally charged and pled guilty in federal court. After sentencing, he urged that the judgment be vacated on the ground that the federal court had no jurisdiction over him under the Major Crimes Act. See St. Cloud I, 702 F.Supp. at 1458-66. The federal district court agreed, and St. Cloud was released from the federal penitentiary and subsequently charged, tried and convicted in South Dakota state court. See St. Cloud II, 465 N.W.2d at 178. St. Cloud (with new counsel in this habeas proceeding) now urges that proper jurisdiction was in the federal court, and that the state court lacked jurisdiction over him. In habeas corpus actions an appellant may assert jurisdictional errors which render the first judgment void. In the context of habeas corpus, jurisdictional error is given an expansive construction. Of course, this includes personal and subject matter jurisdiction[.] Security Savings Bank, 308 N.W.2d at 762-63 (citations omitted). Habeas corpus proceedings may deal with such defects, as render the proceeding or judgment absolutely void. Smith, 80 S.D. at 335, 123 N.W.2d at 301. We are here presented with a singularly unique case where the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota has previously considered the question of whether St. Cloud is an Indian for purposes of federal criminal jurisdiction. This required the federal court to interpret and apply federal statutes. St. Cloud I, 702 F.Supp. at 1457-66. At least two members of this court considered the federal court's decision to be questionable. St. Cloud II, 465 N.W.2d at 179 n. 2. However, with respect to what is essentially a federal question, we are guided and bound by federal statutes and decisions of the federal courts interpreting those statutes. Desmarais v. Joy Mfg. Co., 130 N.H. 299, 538 A.2d 1218, 1220 (1988) (regarding interpretation of federal ERISA law, and citing 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132, 1144). Other courts have likewise noted that they are bound by the decisions of the federal courts in their interpretation of a federal statute. First Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. Carruth, 116 Ariz. 482, 569 P.2d 1380, 1381 (App.1977) (regarding federal venue provisions, and citing 12 U.S.C. § 94) (citing People v. Heidelberg, 33 Ill.App.3d 574, 338 N.E.2d 56 (1975); Penbrook Hauling Co. v. Sovereign Constr. Co., 128 N.J.Super. 179, 319 A.2d 277 (1974); Hobbs Lumber Co. v. Shidell, 42 Ohio Misc. 21, 326 N.E.2d 706 (1974); Ford v. Wisconsin Real Estate Exam. Bd., 48 Wis.2d 91, 179 N.W.2d 786 (1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 993, 91 S.Ct. 1229, 28 L.Ed.2d 530 (1971)). See also Ex parte Gurganus, 603 So.2d 903, 906 (Ala.1992) wherein that court stated: Federal decisional law interpreting a federal statute ... and delineating the rights and obligations thereunder is binding on this Court under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution: `This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof ..., shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.' (Emphasis added). Id. (quoting U.S. CONST. art. VI). This is not to be confused with other situations where we look to federal courts for guidance in interpretation of a state statute that is similar to a federal lawwhere we are not bound by lower federal court interpretations. See e.g., Sander v. Geib, Elston, Frost Prof. Ass'n, 506 N.W.2d 107, 122-23 (S.D.1993) (Though federal interpretations of federal civil and appellate procedural rules are not binding on us in an interpretation of like rules in our State's courts, it is appropriate to `turn to the federal court decisions for guidance in their application and interpretation.' ) (citing Wilson v. Great N. Ry. Co., 83 S.D. 207, 211, 157 N.W.2d 19, 21 (1968); Brasel v. Myers, 89 S.D. 114, 116, 229 N.W.2d 569, 570 (1975)). See also State v. Woods, 361 N.W.2d 620, 622 (S.D.1985); National Sur. Corp. v. Shoemaker, 86 S.D. 302, 310, 195 N.W.2d 134, 139 (1972). Thus, in light of the determination made by the federal court, interpreting federal law in St. Cloud I, we accept that court's holding that for purposes of federal criminal jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act, St. Cloud is not an Indian as required by that federal law. The State of South Dakota properly has jurisdiction over the criminal charges against St. Cloud.