--- Am. Tribal Law ----, 2026 WL 579464 (Fort Peck C.A.)
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
Fort Peck Court of Appeals.
THE FORT PECK TRIBES, Appellant,
v.
HOLLY TOAVS, Appellee.
CAUSE NO. AP # 894
|
February 24, 2026
Appeal from the Fort Peck Tribal Court, Judge Lonnie Headdress, Presiding.
ORDER VACATING WITH PREJUDICE DISMISSAL AND REMANDING
BACKGROUND
¶ 1 This matter comes before the Fort Peck Court of Appeals (FPCOA) on an appeal filed by the Fort Peck Tribes (Tribes) on August 18, 2025, from the Tribal Court’s August 8, 2025, order dismissing with prejudice a criminal complaint against Ms. Toavs for the failure of the Tribes to appear at a pre-trial status hearing. Judge Headdress dismissed the complaint with prejudice finding that the Tribes trad notice of the pre-trial status hearing and failed to appear without good cause. The Tribes appeal the “with prejudice” aspect of the dismissal while acknowledging that the Tribal prosecutor did fail to appear at the pre-trial hearing. The Tribes argue that a dismissal with prejudice was not warranted under the circumstances and is not supported by any finding of prejudice against the Appellee.
JURISDICTION
¶ 2 Because the dismissal in this case was with prejudice this Court must address the initial legal question of whether the Tribes may appeal from a with-prejudice dismissal of a criminal complaint or whether such a dismissal is equivalent to an acquittal, which this Court has held that the Tribes cannot appeal to this Court in Tribes v. Hamilton, App#901.
¶ 3 The Fort Peck Code of Justice provides defendants convicted of a crime in Tribal Court with an appeal as a matter of right. See 2 CCOJ 205(a). This absolute right to appeal serves one of the Tribal government’s highest priorities—protecting the liberty and property rights of the Tribes’ individual citizens. See Fort Peck Tribes v. Scheaffer, AP # 892, ¶ 2 (2025), 2025 WL 24434831 (Fort Peck C.A. 2025).
¶ 4 On the other hand, the Code treats the governmental prosecutor—tire Fort Peck Tribes (Tribes)—differently. The Tribes have no guaranteed right to appeal criminal cases. In fact, lire Code forbids the government from appealing a verdict of not guilty rendered by a jury of the defendant’s peers. 2 CCOJ 205(a). This Court has recently held that the Tribes are also barred form appealing a directed verdict of acquittal in a jury trial under double jeopardy principles. See Tribes v Hamilton, #901. However, the Code specifically allows Tribal appeals of not guilty verdicts issued by a Tribal judge in bench trials. 2 CCOJ 205(a).1
¶ 5 This is a dismissal of a criminal complaint with prejudice due to the Tribes failing to appear at a pre-trial status hearing. Although the record reflects that the dismissal with prejudice was based upon the Appellee’s counsel advising the Court that laboratory tests on the alleged drugs involved in the criminal infraction were riot yet available, the dismissal itself does not cite to any prejudice against the Appellee or to any conduct by the Tribes that was outrageous or contributed to a violation of the Appellee’s rights under the Fort Peck Code or the Indian Civil Rights Act. This Court has held in prior decisions that a dismissal based upon a procedural error that does not go to the weight of the evidence presented is not the equivalent of an acquittal. See Scheaffer, Fort Peck Tribes v. Charette, Cause # 046, 1988 WL 1743251 (Fort Peck C.A. 1988) (trial of a Defendant after dismissal for failure to arraign not a violation of double jeopardy). Therefore, to sustain the with prejudice dismissal below, which essentially bars the Tribes from refiling the complaint alleging the same conduct as is alleged in the complaint dismissed with prejudice, this Court must be satisfied that the Court below found that the failure of the Tribes to appear at the pre-trial status hearing resulted in a fundamental violation of the Appellee’s rights under the Tribal Code and Indian Civil Rights Act. This Court does not find that the Court below made sufficient findings to warrant such a dismissal and thus holds that the Tribes have a right of appeal from the; with-prejudice dismissal in this case as it was not the equivalent of an acquittal under double jeopardy standards.
DISCUSSION
¶ 6 The Tribes ask us to find error in the trial Judge’s decision to dismiss with prejudice the criminal complaint filed in April of 2025 charging tire Appellee with two felony drug charges including possession with intent to distribute. They do not contest the factual predicate for the dismissal—the Prosecutor failed to show up for a pre-trial status hearing. Instead, they argue that the Court lacked legal grounds to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, thus barring the complaint from being filed anew.
¶ 7 In Tribes v. Ahneman, AP # 840, this Court laid out the standard for the Tribal Court to determine whether a dismissal should be with or without prejudice in a criminal case. There, the Court was faced with a similar situation as this where there was a delay in the prosecution of a drug case due to laboratory results not being returned to the Tribes. After the Tribes moved to continue the trial due to this delay the Tribal Court instead dismissed with prejudice the criminal charges. This Court reversed that decision finding that “a with prejudice dismissal is only justified if the Tribal Court makes findings showing a fundamental violation of a Defendant’s rights.” We do not see such findings in the with-prejudice dismissal below and thus remand for a new pre-trial status hearing where the Court can address whether the dismissal order should remain with prejudice or should have been issued without prejudice.
Therefore, we GRANT the appeal in this case and remand for a new pre-trial status hearing.
SO ORDERED this 24th day of February 2026.
FORT PECK COURT OF APPEALS
Erin Shanley, Chief Justice
R.J. Jones, Associate Justice
James Grijalva, Associate Justice
All Citations
--- Am. Tribal Law ----, 2026 WL 579464
Footnotes |
|
Although this Court has upheld the right of the Tribes to appeal a verdict of not guilty issued by a Judge instead of a jury, it appears to this Court that we should revisit Fort Peck Tribes v. Stormey, Cause # 075, July 25, 1989, as the decision in that case seems to run afoul of contemporary double jeopardy jurisprudence. |
|