AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• A child, an enrolled member of the Navajo Nation, was charged with battery upon a school employee at Wingate High School, located within Parcel Three of the former Fort Wingate Military Reservation. The child filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting the incident occurred in "Indian country" under existing legal precedents (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• State v. Dick, 1999-NMCA-062, 127 N.M. 382, 981 P.2d 796: Held that the State does not have jurisdiction to prosecute within Parcel Three of the former Fort Wingate Military Reservation.
• United States v. M.C., 311 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (D.N.M. 2004): Decided otherwise, suggesting state jurisdiction could apply.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State of New Mexico): Argued for the court to agree with the federal court decision in M.C. and overrule its holding in Dick, asserting jurisdiction over the case (para 1).
• Defendant-Appellee (Child): Asserted that the incident occurred in "Indian country" under the precedent set by Dick, challenging the state's jurisdiction over the case (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether Parcel Three of the former Fort Wingate Military Reservation is within "Indian country" as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1151, thereby determining the State's jurisdiction over the case (paras 5-7).

Disposition

• The district court's dismissal of the State's prosecution was affirmed, maintaining that Parcel Three is a "dependent Indian community" under 18 U.S.C. § 1151 and outside the State's jurisdiction (para 16).

Reasons

• Per JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge concurring):
  The court reaffirmed its decision in Dick, holding that Parcel Three is within "Indian country" as it meets the criteria of being set aside by the Federal Government for the use of the Indians as Indian land and is under federal superintendence. The court disagreed with the State's interpretation of the set-aside requirement and found no compelling reason to deviate from its precedent in Dick. It emphasized the importance of stability and fairness in the law, and noted that the issue of federal versus state jurisdiction was not directly relevant to the determination of "Indian country" status under 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (paras 8-15).