Subject matter jurisdiction is a critical part of any case.
This is something that allows a Court to hear a case and exercise
authority over the parties. This is a defense that can be raised
at any time and it cannot be waived.
Under
federal law, a person who is an Indian that commits a crime in
Indian Country can not be prosecuted in state court. Depending on
the crime, they would either be in federal court or in tribal court.
At one time, it was believed that if the defendant is a non-Indian but the victim is an Indian and the
crime occurs in Indian Country, the offender will be in federal court.
However, on June 29, 2022, the United States Supreme Court decided the
case of Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 142 S.Ct. 2486 (2022), which
held that the Federal Government and the State have concurrent
jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in
Indian Country.
Indian Country is an area
that by treaty has been established as a reservation for an Indian
tribe. The character of the reservation does not change based upon
how the land is owned. (Imagine if the State of Oklahoma shrunk because the government sold land to a private person. In
the same way, an Indian Reservation is not diminished by selling land to
non-Indians.)
In
Deo v. State, 2023 OK CR 20, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Appeals found that Congress had not preempted state authority over
Indians in Indian Country for crimes that were not listed in the Major
Crimes Act. The Court also found that Indian Country jurisdiction
is actually personal jurisdiction or territorial jurisdiction and not
subject matter jurisdiction. By making this ruling, the Court has
circumvented the "subject matter jurisdiction" issue that existed after
McGirt. Unlike subject matter jurisdiction, territorial
jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction can be waived by entering a plea.
