--- Am. Tribal Law ----, 2025 WL 80256 (Fort Peck C.A.)
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
Fort Peck Court of Appeals.
Logan GRANT, Appellant
v.
FORT PECK TRIBES, Appellees.
CAUSE NO. AP # 871
|
FILED JANUARY 10, 2025
Appeal from the Fort Peck Tribal Court, Stacie Fourstar, Presiding Judge.
Before E. Shanley, Chief Justice; J. Grijalva, Associate Justice (excused); and B.J. Jones, Associate Justice.
ORDER
BACKGROUND
¶ 1 Logan Grant appeals to this Court from a March 7, 2024 verdict of guilty of Manslaughter and two counts of Criminal Endangerment after bench trial before Chief Judge Fourstar. He claims that the trial court violated his rights under Brady v. Maryland by not releasing potentially exculpatory evidence to his counsel after an appropriate discovery motion and by denying a motion in limine to restrict the introduction of evidence that may be contradicted by evidence obtained by the FBI. He also argues that there was insufficient evidence presented by the Tribes for a reasonable fact finder to find that the Appellant committed the offense of manslaughter under the CCOJ and that he is an “Indian” as that term is referenced at 18 U.S.C. § 1153, and incorporated into the Indian Civil Rlights Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1301(4) and used in the CCOJ.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
¶ 2 The Fort Peck Appellate Court may review final orders from the Fort Peck Tribal Court. 2 CCOJ § 202. The Judgment of Conviction is a final order for purposes of review.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶ 3 This Court reviews de novo all determinations of the lower court on matters of law, but shall not set aside any factual determinations of the Tribal Court if such determinations are supported by substantial evidence. However, in order to raise contested issues of fact on appeal it must be demonstrated that the issue was raised to the trial court to permit it to address the issue first.
ISSUES
1. Did the Tribal Court err when it denied the Appellant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence that may be contracted by evidence obtained by the FBI in its federal investigation of the matter?
2. Did the Tribal Court err by finding sufficient evidence to find the Appellant guilty of manslaughter
3. Did the Tribal Court err by finding the Tribes proved the Appellant’s Indian status beyond a reasonable doubt?
DISCUSSION
¶ 4 The Court first addresses the alleged Brady violation by the Tribes allegedly not producing the notes from the FBI interviews of witnesses. This Court notes that in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) the United States Supreme Court held that it is violative of the due process rights of criminal defendants to a fair trial for the government to withhold potentially exculpatory evidence that the government possesses.
¶ 5 This Court recognizes the difficulties in obtaining cooperation from the federal government in cases in which the Tribes and Federal Government exercise concurrent jurisdiction. However, the Tribes have the ability to prosecute a case when they have sufficient evidence to meet their burden of proof, regardless of the inability to obtain information in the custody of the Federal Government. See Larson v. Fort Peck Tribes, APP 853 (August 17, 2023). The key ingredient lacking in this case is proof that the Tribes possessed the FBI interview summaries or notes as Brady does not compel the government to seek evidence from another governmental entity that it does not possess, especially when that other entity is the FBI, an agency that is notorious for quarantining its evidence during a criminal investigation. The information submitted by Appellant contains a letter from the Fort Peck Criminal Investigations Department which indicates that the Tribes did not have access to nor authority to release any interviews that were conducted or in in the possession of the FBI. See Notice of Appeal, Exhibit A, p.21.
¶ 6 The Appellant filed a motion in limine to restrict the Tribes from using evidence that could potentially be contradicted by the notes and interviews of the FBI without knowing whether the FBI evidence did contradict the evidence that was presented at the trial. The trial Judge denied the motion as it was based upon speculation that the FBI may have elicited evidence and witness statements that were indicative of the Appellant’s innocence. There was no proof however that the Tribes had possession of such evidence and failed to provide it to the Appellant. The Appellant was provided all evidence the Tribes had in its possession prior to trial, and nothing precluded the Appellant from attempting to elicit evidence from the FBI agents who were conducting a concurrent investigation. The Appellant could also provide this issue to the trier of fact to consider when weighing the evidence, as suggested by this Court in Larson. This Court thus finds that the lower court did not err in denying the motion in limine.
¶ 7 The Appellant also argues that there was insufficient evidence presented to the trial Judge to sustain the guilty verdict for manslaughter and that the Judge erred in allegedly relying exclusively on witness testimony rather than also considering the stipulated exhibits including the autopsy and accident reports.
¶ 8 In reviewing an insufficient evidence appeal the duty of this Court is to determine whether any reasonable fact finder could have reached the verdict she did, and not for this Court to independently review the evidence to assess whether it demonstrated that the Appellant committed the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The Appellant has failed to demonstrate that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the verdict in this case. Admittedly, there were some conflicts between the testimonial evidence and exhibits, but it is the duty of the fact finder is to sift through the evidence and make a determination regarding whether the whole of the evidence supports the verdict. This Court does not see error in that regard.
¶ 9 The last issue raised is that the Tribes failed to present evidence to the Judge to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was an “Indian” person. While Appellant raised this issue in his closing statement, it does not appear that the Appellant raised this issue after submission of the Tribes’ case in chief by a directed verdict motion, but instead is raising it for the first time on appeal. The Tribes have responded to the appeal on this issue by pointing out that the Appellant’s own criminal history records contain his enrollment number and that he is clearly Indian as that term is referenced under federal law. It is not clear from the record, however, that this was relied upon by the presiding Judge to support the implicit finding that Logan is Indian or that it would have been proper for the trial Judge to take judicial notice of this.
¶ 10 The requirement that the Tribes prove that the Appellant is Indian was a factual predicate to proving the Appellant guiltily of the crimes charged. A judge or jury hearing a criminal case need not make factual findings of fact in order to sustain a verdict of guilty, unless special interrogatory findings are requested by either side, and a finding of guilty is generally inclusive of all factual findings necessary to sustain a verdict of guilty. If the Tribes’ case in chief is deficient in some regard it is incumbent upon the Defendant to raise the alleged deficiency to the tribal court in the form of a motion for directed verdict after the Tribes rest in order to lay the foundation to allow the Court to address the matter and make a record to preserve the issue for appeal.
¶ 11 This Court attempted to lay out the proper route for a criminal defendant to preserve the issue of whether he is Indian or not for appellate review in Jackson v. Tribes APP 868. In that case Jackson appealed after conditionally pleading guilty to certain criminal offenses and argued that she was not Indian. This Court denied her appeal finding that the sole issue was whether probable cause existed to believe she was Indian because of her conditional guilty plea. This case is different because Logan did not enter a plea of guilty and thus the Tribes had the burden of demonstrating at trial every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt including the element that he was Indian. He argues that no evidence was presented by the Tribes to support the Court’s implicit finding that he was Indian and thus this Court should reverse the verdict on that ground.
¶ 12 This Court notes that the Appellant never raised this issue to the lower court and instead appears to have intentionally not done so in order to appeal the conviction on that ground even though it appears that he is a member of the Tribes. This puts this Court in a difficult position to assess the argument because the Tribes argue that the evidence of him being Indian is that he is an enrolled member of the Tribes and this evidence is part of the record before the lower court. Indeed, it is on the sentencing history of the Appellant along with his enrollment number. It was incumbent upon the Appellant to raise the issue to the Court below in the form of a motion for directed verdict arguing against consideration of the sentencing history as evidence of his Indian status and obtain the Court’s ruling on the motion to preserve the issue for this Court to properly review on appeal. This Court takes no position on whether it is appropriate for a Judge to take judicial notice of a Defendant’s enrollment status and number contained in a sentencing history document as proof of his Indian status because it was not raised to the Court below.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the appeal in this case is hereby DENIED and the verdicts below affirmed.
All Citations
--- Am. Tribal Law ----, 2025 WL 80256