Opinion ID: 2653768
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Indian Status – Sufficiency of the Evidence

Text: Nowlin first contends there was insufficient evidence to prove his status as an Indian. This contention is rejected. “We review the record for sufficiency of the evidence de novo to determine whether a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, given the direct and circumstantial evidence, along with reasonable inferences therefrom, taken in the light most favorable to the government.” United States v. Diaz, 679 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under the Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153, the prosecution must prove to the jury that the defendant is an Indian. United States v. Stymiest, 581 F.3d 759, 763 (8th Cir. 2009). The term “Indian” is not defined by the statute; thus, we use a two-pronged test, asking whether “the defendant (1) has some Indian blood; and (2) is recognized as an Indian by a tribe or by the federal government.” United States v. Prentiss, 273 F.3d 1277, 1280 (10th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted); see id. at 1280 n.2 (recognizing that the two-part test applies to prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152 and 1153).1 1 This test implicitly requires federal recognition of the defendant’s tribe. See United States v. Maggi, 598 F.3d 1073, 1078 (9th Cir. 2010). The record interchangeably refers to Nowlin’s tribe as the Eastern Shoshone and the Shoshone, though only the latter is listed as a federally recognized tribe. See Dep’t of Interior (continued) -3- The first prong is met when the defendant’s “parent, grandparent, or great-grandparent . . . is clearly identified as an Indian.” United States v. Maggi, 598 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir. 2010). In evaluating the second prong, courts have developed a list of factors that juries consider in ascertaining whether a defendant is recognized as an Indian by a tribe or the federal government. These factors include: “‘1) enrollment in a tribe; 2) government recognition formally and informally through providing the person assistance reserved only to Indians; 3) enjoying benefits of tribal affiliation; and 4) social recognition as an Indian through living on a reservation and participating in Indian social life.’” Stymiest, 581 F.3d at 763 (quoting St. Cloud v. United States, 702 F. Supp. 1456, 1461 (D.S.D. 1988)). These factors are not exclusive and only the first factor is dispositive if the defendant is an enrolled tribe member. Id. at 764. The first prong of our test is not disputed. Nowlin concedes he has “some degree of Indian blood,” Aplt. Br. at 11, as confirmed by George Shongutsie, the Eastern Shoshone Tribal Enrollment Director. And Shongutsie testified that: (1) Nowlin’s mother, maternal grandparents, and maternal great-grandmother were enrolled members of the tribe, and (2) Nowlin is a tribal descendent with 31/128 Indian blood. Notice, Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 75 Fed. Reg. 60810-01, 60812, 2010 WL 3811385 (Oct. 1, 2010). Nevertheless, we have observed that the Eastern Shoshone is federally recognized, see N. Arapaho Tribe v. Harnsberger, 697 F.3d 1272, 1275 (10th Cir. 2012), and Nowlin does not argue otherwise. -4- The second prong requires tribal or federal recognition. Though Nowlin is not an enrolled member; the government presented evidence that: ● Nowlin enjoyed access to free healthcare from the Indian Health Service, ● Nowlin obtained three fishing permits that were available only to Indians, and ● Nowlin was socially recognized as an Indian through participation in powwows, bearing children with an enrolled tribe member, and holding himself out as an Indian. In addition, the district court took judicial notice of facts indicating that Nowlin had previously conceded his status as an Indian. As the court told the jury: You may accept this fact as true, but you are not required to do so. The Court hereby takes judicial notice of the fact that the defendant, Casey James Nowlin, has, with counsel before a Court, previously admitted under oath and under penalty that he is an Indian person. He stated under oath that he is not enrolled with an Indian tribe, but that he is a member of the Shoshone Tribe. The defendant also stated under oath that he has lived on the Wind River Indian Reservation all his life and attended Indian schools on the reservation. The defendant further stated that he submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Shoshone and Arapahoe Tribal Court. Lastly, he stated that he has received treatment through the Indian Health Services in the past. R., Vol. 3 at 1155-56. The evidence, combined with Nowlin’s prior concession of Indian status, was sufficient regarding both prongs of the test. Thus, we reject Nowlin’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. -5-