Court Opinion

ID: 9495300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:59:01.74168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:55.409168
License: Public Domain

GOULD, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
In the majority opinion, we hold that under Eml D., a state agency, as with a federal agency, is not a “person” for purposes of the Major Crimes Act. The holding of Eml D., which we are bound to follow, requires this conclusion for the reasons stated in the majority opinion. However, in my view, the decision by a divided Court in Errol D. was incorrect. I am persuaded by the Enrol D. dissent’s position, and think that this case underscores that it would be wise for our Court to reassess the issue en banc. Enrol D.’s necessary application here to cover state agencies demonstrates that its holding left a potential gap in jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act.
What is this gap? The majority in Eml D. reasoned in part that the defendant in that case could be prosecuted under alternative statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 641 or 18 U.S.C. § 1152. Here, Belgarde cannot be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 641 because this case is concerned with state property, not federal property. Also a possible jurisdictional problem could exist for a charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1152. Section 1152 states in part: “This section shall not extend to ... any Indian committing any offense in the Indian country who had been punished by the local law of the tribe....” If tribal authorities have prosecuted Belgarde for the same offence, a mere misdemeanor in Tribal court, then federal prosecution would be foreclosed. And even if Belgarde, himself, was not prosecuted for burglary in Tribal court, another burglar may be. I cannot believe that Congress would have intended not to reach such conduct under federal criminal law. In reaching its conclusion and holding, the panel in Eml D. failed adequately to consider this possible jurisdictional gap in the case of burglary of a state agency.
Of course, we do not sit to close a jurisdictional gap left by Congress, but here Congress did not create the gap concerning burglary of a state agency on Tribal lands. We did. Following Errol D. here, *1183with misgivings, I respectfully urge my colleagues to take another look at whether a government agency, and here a state agency, is a person for purposes of the Major Crimes Act.