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

• The State of New Mexico charged the Defendant with multiple counts of criminal sexual penetration and contact of minors under the age of thirteen and fourteen. These acts occurred in Parcel Three of Fort Wingate in McKinley County, New Mexico, which was contested as being within "Indian country" and thus outside the state's jurisdiction (para 1).

Procedural History

• District Court of McKinley County: The criminal information was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the acts occurred in "Indian country" not subject to state jurisdiction (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State of New Mexico): Argued that Parcel Three of Fort Wingate is not located within Indian country and is subject to the jurisdiction of the state court (para 1).
• Defendant-Appellee (Ernie Begaye): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether Parcel Three of Fort Wingate meets the "set aside requirement" under 18 U.S.C. Section 1151(b) and thus is considered Indian country, exempting it from state jurisdiction (paras 2-3).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the criminal information due to lack of jurisdiction, as the acts charged occurred within Indian country (para 5).

Reasons

• Per Wechsler, J. (Bustamante, J., and Vigil, J., concurring): The court referenced the set aside requirement under 18 U.S.C. Section 1151(b), which necessitates that the land must have been designated by the Federal Government for the use of the Indians as Indian land and be under federal superintendence. The State's appeal sought to challenge a previous interpretation that Parcel Three met this requirement. However, the court decided to follow the precedent set in State v. Steven B., which held that Parcel Three does meet the set aside requirement and is within Indian country. This decision was based on the acknowledgment of the prior ruling in Dick and the recent decision in Steven B., which directly addressed and rejected the State's arguments against Parcel Three being considered Indian country (paras 2-4).