State of Oklahoma v. Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta

Tulsa, Oklahoma criminal defense lawyer represented Defendant charged with sexual abuse of a minor in Indian Country.



This case presents a jurisdictional question about the

prosecution of crimes committed by non-Indians against In-

dians in Indian country: Under current federal law, does

the Federal Government have exclusive jurisdiction to pros-

ecute those crimes? Or do the Federal Government and the

State have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute those

crimes? We conclude that the Federal Government and the

State have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes com-

mitted by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country.

I

In 2015, Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta lived in Tulsa, Ok-

lahoma, with his wife and their several children, including

Castro-Huerta's then-5-year-old stepdaughter, who is a

Cherokee Indian. The stepdaughter has cerebral palsy and

is legally blind. One day in 2015, Castro-Huerta's sister-in-

law was in the house and noticed that the young girl was

sick. After a 911 call, the girl was rushed to a Tulsa hospi-

tal in critical condition. Dehydrated, emaciated, and cov-

ered in lice and excrement, she weighed only 19 pounds. In-

vestigators later found her bed filled with bedbugs and

cockroaches.

When questioned, Castro-Huerta admitted that he had

severely undernourished his stepdaughter during the pre-

ceding month. The State of Oklahoma criminally charged

both Castro-Huerta and his wife for child neglect. Both

were convicted. Castro-Huerta was sentenced to 35 years

of imprisonment, with the possibility of parole. This case

concerns the State's prosecution of Castro-Huerta.

After Castro-Huerta was convicted and while his appeal

was pending in state court, this Court decided McGirt v.

Oklahoma, 591 U. S. ___ (2020). In McGirt, the Court held

that Congress had never properly disestablished the Creek

Nation's reservation in eastern Oklahoma. As a result, the

Court concluded that the Creek Reservation remained "In-

dian country.” Id., at ___–___, ___, ___ (slip op., at 1–3, 17,

28). The status of that part of Oklahoma as Indian country

meant that different jurisdictional rules might apply for the

prosecution of criminal offenses in that area. See 18

U. S. C. §§1151–1153. Based on McGirt's reasoning, the

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals later recognized that

several other Indian reservations in Oklahoma had like-

wise never been properly disestablished. See, e.g., State

ex rel. Matloff v. Wallace, 2021 OK CR 21, ¶15, 497 P. 3d

686, 689 (reaffirming recognition of the Cherokee, Choctaw,

and Chickasaw Reservations); Grayson v. State, 2021 OK

CR 8, ¶10, 485 P. 3d 250, 254 (Seminole Reservation).

In light of McGirt and the follow-on cases, the eastern

part of Oklahoma, including Tulsa, is now recognized as In-

dian country. About two million people live there, and the

vast majority are not Indians.

The classification of eastern Oklahoma as Indian country

has raised urgent questions about which government or

governments have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes commit-

ted there. This case is an example: a crime committed in

what is now recognized as Indian country (Tulsa) by a non-Indian (Castro-Huerta) against an Indian (his stepdaugh-

ter). All agree that the Federal Government has jurisdic-

tion to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against

Indians in Indian country. The question is whether the

Federal Government's jurisdiction is exclusive, or whether

the State also has concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal

Government.

In the wake of McGirt, Castro-Huerta argued that the

Federal Government's jurisdiction to prosecute crimes com-

mitted by a non-Indian against an Indian in Indian country

is exclusive and that the State therefore lacked jurisdiction

to prosecute him. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Ap-

peals agreed with Castro-Huerta. Relying on an earlier Ok-

lahoma decision holding that the federal General Crimes

Act grants the Federal Government exclusive jurisdiction,

the court ruled that the State did not have concurrent ju-

risdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians

against Indians in Indian country. The court therefore va-

cated Castro-Huerta's conviction. No. F–2017–1203 (Apr.

29, 2021); see also Bosse v. State, 2021 OK CR 3, 484 P. 3d

286; Roth v. State, 2021 OK CR 27, 499 P. 3d 23.

While Castro-Huerta's state appellate proceedings were

ongoing, a federal grand jury in Oklahoma indicted Castro-

Huerta for the same conduct. Castro-Huerta accepted a

plea agreement for a 7-year sentence followed by removal

from the United States. (Castro-Huerta is not a U. S. citi-

zen and is unlawfully in the United States.) In other words,

putting aside parole possibilities, Castro-Huerta in effect

received a 28-year reduction of his sentence as a result of

McGirt.

Castro-Huerta's case exemplifies a now-familiar pattern

in Oklahoma in the wake of McGirt. The Oklahoma courts

have reversed numerous state convictions on that same ju-

risdictional ground. After having their state convictions re-

versed, some non-Indian criminals have received lighte

sentences in plea deals negotiated with the Federal Govern-

ment. Others have simply gone free. Going forward, the

State estimates that it will have to transfer prosecutorial

responsibility for more than 18,000 cases per year to the

Federal and Tribal Governments. All of this has created a

significant challenge for the Federal Government and for

the people of Oklahoma. At the end of fiscal year 2021, the

U. S. Department of Justice was opening only 22% and 31%

of all felony referrals in the Eastern and Northern Districts

of Oklahoma. Dept. of Justice, U. S. Attorneys, Fiscal Year

2023 Congressional Justification 46. And the Department

recently acknowledged that "many people may not be held

accountable for their criminal conduct due to resource con-

straints.” Ibid.

In light of the sudden significance of this jurisdictional

question for public safety and the criminal justice system in

Oklahoma, this Court granted certiorari to decide whether

a State has concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Gov-

ernment to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians

against Indians in Indian country. 595 U. S. ___ (2022).1



* * *

We conclude that the Federal Government and the State

have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed

by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country. We

therefore reverse the judgment of the Oklahoma Court of

Criminal Appeals and remand the case for further proceed-

ings not inconsistent with this opinion.



It is so ordered