Document Type

Article

Publication Date

11-17-2003

Abstract

  • In the Blackfeet Tribal Court of Appeals, the Court upheld a previous judgement convicting a defendant of four charges centering around assault and child endangerment.  

  • The Court considered whether: 1) the defendant’s rights were violated by not being allowed to face his accuser; and 2) whether the imposed sentence was excessive and a violation of the Indian Civil Rights Act.  

  • 1) The Court cited the Blackfeet Law and Order Code, Ch.1, Sec. 11, stating that a complaint is valid when it bears the signature of a complaining witness or complainant, witnessed by a judge. In this case, the Blackfeet Law Enforcement Officer filed and signed the complaint as the complainant. The officer took an oath when he became an officer to uphold the laws of the tribe. Section 6D of the ICRA provides that an accused person has the right to confront witnesses against them and cross examine them. The Officer was the complaining witness and was available for cross-examination even though the victims were not served subpoenas and did not appear. The Prosecutor did offer other witnesses, who were also available for cross examination. The responsibility to call a witness favorable to the defense lies with the defense. Defendant failed to subpoena any witnesses, or did any appear on his behalf.  

  • 2) The Court considered whether the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing the defendant to the maximum sentence for the four charges he was found guilty. The Defendant alleged that the imposition of the maximum sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Sec. 7 of the ICRA. The Court noted that it is a principle under federal law that a sentence within the statutory maximum is only subject to review on appeal for manifest abuse of discretion. United States v. Johnson, 507 F.2d at 830-31. The Court cited Giblin v. United States, 523 F.2d at 42, stating that “only where the trial judge has failed to exercise his discretion, or in exercising his discretion has manifestly or grossly abused that discretion will the appellate court intervene.” Blackfeet Law and Order Code Ch. 4, Sec. 1D, states that the Court shall take into consideration the previous conduct of the defendant, circumstances of the crime committed, and whether the offense was malicious or willful and whether the defendant has attempted to make amends. At sentencing, the prosecutor and defense counsel offered recommendations. The judge sentenced the defendant to the maximum after considering the nature of his crimes. The sentence was not an abuse of discretion. The Court also notes that the defendant was offered a plea agreement one month before trial where the defendant would have been offered rehabilitative services rather than jail time, to which the defendant refused. 

  • Lower court decision is upheld.  

Download

Share

COinS