Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1669330
label
1976/05/29 S2129 The Indian Crimes Act of 1976
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1669330
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
1976/05/29 S2129 The Indian Crimes Act of 1976
citationUrl
collections
White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files
Legislation Case Files
subjects
Crime
Legislation
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1669330
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-05-31
month
5
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-05-01
month
5
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
21e9fe4a2f167dea
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 45, folder "5/29/76 S2129 The Indian Crimes
Act of 1976" of the White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files at the Gerald R.
Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Exact duplicates within this folder were not digitized.
Digitized from Box 45 of the White House Records Office Legislation Case Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
&5/29/76
ACTION
THE WHITE HOUSE
9/61 62 MATA
Last Day: June 4
WASHINGTON
May 28, 1976
Posted
MEMORANDUM FOR
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNOM
6/1/76
SUBJECT:
S. 2129 - The Indian Crimes Act
of 1976
To Crechives
6/1/76
Attached for your consideration is S. 2129, sponsored by
Senators Fannin, Domenici and Hruska. The enrolled bill
would make clarifying amendments to the Indian Major
Crimes Act to insure equal treatment for Indian defendants
accused of committing certain assaultive-type crimes
upon other Indians within Indian country.
A discussion of the enrolled bill is provided in OMB's
bill report at Tab A.
OMB, Max Friedersdorf, Counsel's Office (Lazarus), Ted
Marrs and I recommend approval of the enrolled bill.
RECOMMENDATION
That you sign S. 2129 at Tab B.
LIBRARY GERALD B. FORD
is OF THE INTERIOR
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
March
1849
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
3.
MAY 2 6 1976
Dear Mr. Lynn:
This responds to your request for our views on the enrolled bill
S. 2129, "To provide for the definition and punishment of certain
crimes in accordance with the Federal laws in force within the
special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States
when said crimes are committed by an Indian in order to insure
equal treatment for Indian and non-Indian offenders."
We strongly recommend that the bill be approved by the President
in order to cure a serious defect which now exists with regard
to the prosecution of certain criminal offenses in Indian country.
S. 2129 is similar to H.R. 7592, a bill proposed by the Department
of Justice on which we issued a favorable report February 12, 1976.
S. 2129 would restore the ability, lost as a consequence of the
recent court decisions, of the Federal Government to prosecute
certain serious offenses by Indians under 18 U.S.C. 81153. S. 2129
would delete the requirement that Federal courts look to State law
for the definition and/or punishment of certain enumerated crimes
when the accused is an Indian. Since Federal jurisdiction regard-
ing these enumerated crimes is dependent upon whether the accused
is an Indian or a non-Indian, this would eliminate the possibility
of a disparity in the definition and/or punishment of an offense
under 18 U.S.C. 81153. S. 2129 would also add a new paragraph
to 18 U.S.C. 1153 providing for automatic referral to State law
if Congress should add an offense to the section not otherwise
found among the Federal enclave laws.
S. 2129 differs from H.R. 7592 in that it would add kidnapping
to the major crimes enumerated in 18 U.S.C. 1153, while H.R. 7592
would not. In addition, S. 2129 refers to "assault with intent
to commit murder," while H.R. 7592 refers to "assault with intent
to kill." In its report on S. 2129 (Rep. No. 93-620), the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary explains this amendment as conforming
to the assault provision in 18 U.S.C. 113, the section of the
United States Code that contains the definition and punishment
of criminal offenses committed within the territorial and maritime
jurisdiction of the United States.
REVOLUTION
AMERICAN
BICENTENNIAL
1776-1976
The Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 1153) provides that thirteen enumer-
ated offenses committed by Indians within Indian country (as defined
by 18 U.S.C. 1151) shall be subject to the laws and penalties
applicable within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.
The Act was amended in 1966, however, to provide that certain of
those enumerated offenses-namely burglary, assault with a dangerous
weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily harm, and incest-would
be defined and punished in accordance with the laws of the State
in which such offenses were committed. The Major Crimes Act applies
exclusively to Indians, whether the victim be Indian or non-Indian.
A non-Indian committing enumerated offenses against an Indian in
Indian country would be subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C.
81152 which extends Federal criminal jurisdiction over such non-
Indians and which provides that punishment be defined by Federal
law. A non-Indian committing an enumerated offense against another
non-Indian in Indian country would be tried and punished in accord-
ance with the State law of that jurisdiction. State definition
and punishment for the enumerated offenses often differ from Federal
law and, in many cases, State law prescribes a more severe punishment
than the Federal law applicable within Indian country.
Because of the disparities in penalties given to Indians and non-
Indians, as a result of the application of either State or Federal
law under the statute both the Eighth and Ninth Circuits recently
declared portions of the Major Crimes Act (specifically those
regarding aggravated assault) to be unconstitutional, (United States
V. Cleveland, (9th Cir., 1974); United States V. Seth Henry Big Crow,
(8th Cir., 1975)). As a result, the Federal Government has been
unable to prosecute in either of these two jurisdictions Indians
who commit assault resulting in serious bodily harm. Tribal courts
are restricted to jurisdiction over misdemeanors by the Indian
Civil Rights Act of 1968; and, except where a State has been granted
criminal jurisdiction by Public Law 83-280 or other Acts of Congress,
States do not ordinarily possess jurisdiction over offenses committed
by Indians in Indian country. The problem is serious and leaves
Indian communities unprotected against the enumerated offenses
under Federal or any law, except in the sense that a person might
be prosecuted for a lesser included offense. It is urgent that
the laws which were held to be invalid be replaced soon. For this
reason we support enactment of S. 2129 into law.
Sincerely yours,
Moris Thompson
Commissioner of Indian Affairs
Honorable James T. Lynn
Director, Office of
FORD
Management and Budget
Washington, D.C. 20503
CERALD
2
LIBRARY
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
May 26, 1976
Honorable James T. Lynn
Director, Office of
Management and Budget
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Mr. Lynn:
In compliance with your request, I have examined a facsimile
of the enrolled bill, S. 2129, the "Indian Crimes Act of 1976."
This bill is substantially based upon an Administration
proposal prepared by this Department and previously submitted to
Congress. The bill amends the Major Crimes Act, applicable to
certain felonies committed by Indians in Indian country, so as
to eliminate disparities in treatment as between Indians prosecuted
under that Act and non-Indians prosecuted under a companion statute
who commit offenses in Indian country; these disparities have
resulted in federal appellate court rulings precluding, on the ground
of invidious discrimination, the application of the Major Crimes Act
to Indian defendants with respect to certain serious assaultive
crimes in some areas, thereby according such defendants an effective
immunity from prosecution for their criminal acts. In addition to
restoring the ability to prosecute such offenses in an evenhanded
manner, the bill makes a variety of other minor improvements to the
statute.
Accordingly, the Department of Justice recommends Executive
approval of this bill.
Sincerely,
Uichael lle
Michael M. Uhlmann
OF THE
THE
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE
UNITED
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
SECUTIVE
STATES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
MAY 27 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill S. 2129 - The Indian
Crimes Act of 1976
Sponsors - Sen. Fannin (R) Arizona, Sen.
Domenici (R) New Mexico and Sen. Hruska
(R) Nebraska
Last Day for Action
June 4, 1976 - Friday
Purpose
To make clarifying amendments to the Indian Major
Crimes Act to insure equal treatment for Indian
defendants accused of committing certain assaultive-
type crimes upon other Indians within Indian
country.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Approval
Department of the Interior
Approval
Department of Justice
Approval
Discussion
The enrolled bill, S. 2129, based upon an Administra-
tion proposal prepared by the Department of Justice,
amends the Indian Major Crimes Act, applicable to
certain felonies committed by Indians in Indian
country.
S. 2129 eliminates inequities in treatment as
between Indians prosecuted under the Major Crimes
Act and non-Indians prosecuted under a companion
statute who commit offenses in Indian country.
Because of these present disparities in treatment,
recent Federal court rulings have held that the
2
application of the Major Crimes Act to Indian
defendants with respect to certain assaultive-type
crimes is unconstitutional, thus according such
defendants effective immunity from prosecution for
their criminal acts.
S. 2129 eliminates the requirement that State
law be applied in certain enumerated felonies
and instead subjects Indians to the same laws
and penalties as all other persons committing
these offenses, within the jurisdiction of the
United States. In addition, while remedying the
constitutional and definitional problems in
existing law, the enrolled bill makes a number of
other technical changes in the law as well as
adding kidnapping to the list of major offenses
under the Indian Major Crimes Act.
James Assistant m. Director Trey for
Legislative Reference
Enclosure
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
Date:
Time:
May 28
900am
FOR ACTION:
Dick Parsons
the
cc (for information):
Jack Marsh
TTed Marrs oh
Jim Cavanaugh
MMx Friedersdorf
Ed Schmults
Ken Lazarus
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date:
May 28
Time:
500pm
SUBJECT:
S. 2129 - The Indian Crimes Act of 1976
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
Please return to Judy Jbhnston, Ground Floor West Wing
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
FORD a BRARY
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
K. R. COLE, JR.
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
For the President
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
Date:
Time:
May 28
900am
FOR ACTION: Dick Parsons
CC (for information):
Jack Marsh
Ted Marrs
Jim Cavanaugh
Max Friedersdorf
Ken Lazarus
The
Ed Schmults
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: May 28
Time:
500pm
SUBJECT:
S. . 2129 - The Indian Crimes Act of 1976
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
Please return to Judy Johnston, Ground Floor West Wing
Approval
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
James M. Cannon
For the President
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
Date:
Time:
May 28
900am
FOR ACTION: Dick Parsons
CC (for information):
Jack Marsh
Ted Marrs
Jim Cavanaugh
Max Friedersdorf
Ed Schmults
Ken Lazarus
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: May 28
Time:
500pm
SUBJECT:
S. . 2129 - The Indian Crimes Act of 1976
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
Approval. ROB
Please return to Judy Johnston, Ground Floor West Wing
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
James M. Cannon
For the President
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
Date:
Time:
May 28
900am
FOR ACTION: Dick Parsons
CC (for information):
Jack Marsh
Ted Marrs
Jim Cavanaugh
Max Friedersdorf
Ed Schmults
Ken Lazarus
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: May 28
Time:
500pm
SUBJECT:
S. * 2129 - The Indian Crimes Act of 1976
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
Please return to Judy Johnston, Ground Floor West Wing
No objection - -- Ken Lazarus 5/28/76
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
James M. Cannon
For the
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
Date:
Time:
May 28
900am
FOR ACTION: Dick Parsons
CC (for information):
Jack Marsh
Ted Marrs
Jim Cavanaugh
Max Friedersdorf
Ed Schmults
Ken Lazarus
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: May 28
Time:
500pm
SUBJECT:
S. # 2129 - The Indian Crimes Act of 1976
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
Please return to Judy Johnston, Ground Floor West Wing
approved for Ted T ed more by Bobbu kilbing
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
James M. Cannon
For the Precident
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
States
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
5-27-76.m.
it
MAY 27 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill S. 2129 - The Indian
Crimes Act of 1976
Sponsors - Sen. Fannin (R) Arizona, Sen.
Domenici (R) New Mexico and Sen. Hruska
(R) Nebraska
Last Day for Action
June 4, 1976 - Friday
Purpose
To make clarifying amendments to the Indian Major
Crimes Act to insure equal treatment for Indian
defendants accused of committing certain assaultive-
type crimes upon other Indians within Indian
country.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Approval
Department of the Interior
Approval
Department of Justice
Approval
Discussion
The enrolled bill, S. 2129, based upon an Administra-
tion proposal prepared by the Department of Justice,
amends the Indian Major Crimes Act, applicable to
certain felonies committed by Indians in Indian
country.
S. 2129 eliminates inequities in treatment as
between Indians prosecuted under the Major Crimes
Act and non-Indians prosecuted under a companion
statute who commit offenses in Indian country.
Because of these present disparities in treatment,
recent Federal court rulings have held that the
Attached document was not scanned because it is duplicated elsewhere in the document
Calendar No. 594
94TH CONGRESS
SENATE
REPORT
2d Session
No. 94-620
THE INDIAN CRIMES ACT OF 1975
FEBRUARY 2, 1976.-ordered to be printed
Mr. McClellan, from the Committee on the Judiciary,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 2129]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill
(S. 2129) to provide for the definition and punishment of certain
crimes in accordance with the Federal laws in force within the special
maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States when said
crimes are committed by an Indian in order to insure equal treatment
for Indian and non-Indian offenders, having considered the same,
reports favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that the
bill as amended pass.
AMENDMENTS
(1) On page 1, insert between lines 2 and 3 the following: "That
this Act may be cited as the 'Indian Crimes Act of 1975'."
(2) On page 1, line 3, strike the words "That section" and insert in
lieu thereof the words "SEC. 1. Section".
(3) On page 2, line 1, following the word "manslaughter," insert
the word "kidnaping,".
(4) On page 2, line 4, strike the word "kill" and insert the words
"commit murder" in lieu thereof.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL AS AMENDED
The courts have held that the Indian Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C.
1153), which designates major crimes triable in Federal courts when
committed by an Indian in Indian country, is unconstitutional as
applied where the definition or punishment of the offense is more
onerous than that applied to non-Indian defendants charged with the
same crime under 18 U.S.C. 1152.
57-010
2
3
of the United States Code to clarify the applicable law and to insure
S. 2129, as amended, would make amendments to present title 18
1153 invalid as applied to Indian defendants where the State law's
definition or punishment of the offenses (assault with a dangerous
equal treatment for Indian defendants accused of committing certain The
weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury) was more
amended bill also incorporates the provisions of S. 1263, introduced the
assaultive type crimes upon other Indians within Indian country.
onerous than that which would have applied to a non-Indian charged
with the same crime under 18 U.S.C. 1152.2
by Senator Abourezk on March 20, 1975, to add "kidnaping" to
STATEMENT
Major Crimes Act.
HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATION
The result of these decisions and of the present statutory system
is to create a void within which certain extremely serious offenses
18 U.S.C. 1153 extends Federal jurisdiction to thirteen major crimes
by Indians cannot be federally prosecuted, notwithstanding the clear
committed on Indian reservations by Indians. The original enactment
intention of the Congress in enacting 18 U.S.C. 1153. This is a situa-
was passed in 1885 to remedy the loophole contained in 18 U.S.C. 1152,
tion that both Indians and non-Indians who reside on Indian reserva-
which exempted "offenses committed by one Indian against the criminal person
tios feel must be remedied, for the absence of any effective means to
or property of another Indian" from the general rule that the exclusive
federally prosecute such offenders imperils the security and tran-
laws of the United States applicable in any place within the
quility of reservation life.
jurisdiction of the United States, except the District of Columbia, limited
As observed by Senator Fannin upon the introduction of S. 2129
apply within Indian country. The original enactment was
The magnitude of the Indian crime problem on Federal
to seven offenses.
lands should not be understated. Recent crime statistics at-
The principal problems which the bill is intended to rectify stem
test to the fact that we do have a serious problem which
mainly from amendments made to the statute in 1966 and 1968.
merits immediate attention.
to commit rape were added; the amendment further provided that the
In 1966, the offenses of carnal knowledge and assault with intent
The major crime rate is about 50 percent higher on Indian
reservations than it is in rural America as a whole. The vio-
assault with intent to commit rape be defined in accordance with
lent crime rate on Indian reservations is eight times the
laws of the State in which the offense was committed; and the same
rural rate while the property crime rate is about half the
amendment required assault with a dangerous weapon and incest to in
rural rate. The murder rate among Indians is 3 times that in
be defined and punished in accordance with the laws of the State
rural areas, while the assault rate is nearly 10 times as high.
which the offense occurred.
The number of section 1153 cases involving Indian crimes
The 1968 amendment added the offense of assault resulting in serious
has risen dramatically.
bodily injury and provided that it too be defined and punished in A
During the fiscal year 1973, the number of defendants
accordance with the laws of the State in which it was committed.
against whom court actions-indictments, information re-
similar provision looking to State law for the definition of the crime
moval, transfer, remand, appeal or superseding indict-
of exists from an earlier time.
ments-were begun under section 1153 totaled 404, 88 of
The rape difficulty with the current statutes lies in the fact that, as to
which were within the Arizona district. By contrast, dur-
of the offenses-e.g., rape and the various forms of assault-
some there exist Federal statutes (18 U.S.C. 113 and 2031) applicable within
ing fiscal year 1974, the number of defendants against
whom court actions were initiated under section 1153 was
the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction, that provide for
520 of which 110 were in my home State. As of December 1,
their definition and punishment. Thus, by operation of 18 U.S.C. 1152,
1974, there were throughout the country 587 criminal de-
which renders those statutes applicable to offenses committed by non-
fendants who were subject to court actions pending under
Indians against Indians,¹ a non-Indian committing an assault or rape be
section 1153. Of this total, 120 defendants were Indians on
an Indian victim may be tried under a different standard and
lands within Arizona. From the start of fiscal year 1975
subjected upon to a different penalty from that applicable to an Indian the
until December 1, 1974, court actions were initiated under
offender committing an identical crime, depending upon whether
section 1153 against 240 criminal defendants in Western
under 18 U.S.C. 1153) differs from the Federal statute applicable
State law defining and punishing the offense (which is incorporated
districts, including 57 defendants in my home State. At the
close of fiscal year 1974, 212 defendants had court actions
through 18 U.S.C. 1152.
pending under section 1153, including 29 in Arizona. It is
the potential for invidious discrimination and have held 18 U.S.C.
Recently, Federal courts have recognized that this procedure has
obvious that major crime on reservations, as evidenced by
the volume of Federal litigation against Indian defendants,
1 on its face 18 U.S.C. 1152 applies to crimes committed by an in Indian this regard that
is a serious problem. The situation is especially bad in Ari-
have a non-Indian U.S.C. 1153, the latter statute must be utilized as the prospective U.S.C. 1152 to non-Indian
Although victim, the courts have held that, in view of the overlap vehicle in these
2 See, e.g., United States V. Oleveland, 503 F.2d 1067 (9th Cir. 1974) ; United States
with 18 as to the crimes there numerated, thus limiting 18 modified on rehearing,
V. Analla, 490 F.2d 1204 (10th Cir.), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 419 U.S.
circumstances, offenses. See Henry V. United States, 432 F.2d 114 (9th Cir. 1970),
813 (1974).
434 F.2d 1283, cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1011 (1971).
a Congressional Record, pp. S 12692-S 12693, July 16, 1975 (daily ed.).
S.R. 620
S.R. 620
4
5
zona which in each instance has been second only to South
Dakota in the total number of criminal actions during the
on this difference in holding that the offense of assault with intent to
crimes are not the same. A district court in Arizona recently relied
past 2 years.
One of the effects of my bill would be to remove a serious
legal obstacle to Federal efforts to control major crimes by
view of the fact that 18 U.S.C. 113(a) did not define and punish the
kill in 18 U.S. 1153 was void for lack of a prescribed punishment, in
Indians on Federal lands. This bill would provide greater
tical, the reported bill obviates this apparent defect.
offense.⁵ By rendering the offenses in 18 U.S.C. 1153 and 113 (a) iden-
uniformity in the definition and punishment of major crimes
involving Indians. The due process and equal protection prob-
In addition to the offenses of aggravated assault, a similar constitu-
lems that have often hindered or even prevented prosecution
tional problem is potentially present within the provisions of 18 U.S.C.
of criminal offenders would be effectively removed. Thus the
task of the United States attorney and other officials responsi-
Major Crimes Act refers to State law for definition of these offenses,
1153 for rape and assault with intent to commit rape. At present the
ble for criminal law enforcement on Indian reservations
yet allows the Indian to be imprisoned at the discretion of the court.
would be made easier.
18 U.S.C. 2031 (rape) provide the Federal law applicable to non-
However, 18 U.S.C. 113 (a) (assault with intent to commit rape) and
The most important result of this legislation, and the prin-
cipal reason for its introduction, would be the beneficial effect
it would have on the Indians themselves. This bill, if passed,
references to State law be deleted, and that these offenses be defined
Indian victims. Here again, the policy of equal treatment requires that
Indians who commit these crimes against other persons, including
would help to restore security and tranquility to reservation
life. By increasing the possibility for effective prosecution of
these conclusions.
and punished according to Federal law. The reported bill implements
criminals, serious and violent crimes on Indian lands would
be significantly reduced.
The reported bill would also add "kidnaping" to 18 U.S.C. 1153.
To remedy the constitutional infirmities in the present statutes the
amended S. 2129 would, in effect, revert the Major Crimes Act to its
James Abourezk on March 20, 1975. Kidnapping is considered one of
This incorporates the provisions of S. 1263, introduced by Senator
pre-1966 form by amending 18 U.S.C. 1153 to insure equal treatment
tion of the United States, kidnapping is punishable by up to life im-
when committed within the special maritime and territorial jurisdic-
the most heinous offenses against the person. Under 18 U.S.C. 1201,
for Indian defendants accused of committing aggravated assaults
upon other Indians within the Indian country. This involves deleting
the language in 18 U.S.C. 1153 that currently requires looking to State
prisonment. Thus, by virtue of 18 U.S.C. 1152, a non-Indian who kid-
law for the definition and punishment of the offenses of assault with
a dangerous weapon, assault with intent to kill, and assault resulting
non-Indian therein, is subject to Federal prosecution and punishment
naps an Indian on an Indian reservation or an Indian who kidnaps a
in serious bodily injury. With this language deletion those offenses
would be subject to the provisions in the first paragraph of 18 U.S.C.
another Indian, however, would not be federally punishable and would
under 18 U.S.C. 1201. An Indian who commits the same offense against
1153, establishing the general principle that an Indian who commits
be subject to prosecution, if at all, only by a tribal court which can
any of the thirteen offenses enumerated therein "shall be subject to the
impose no more than six months' imprisonment. The disparity, which
same laws and penalties as all other persons committing any of the
significantly discriminates against Indian victims, will be eliminated
above offenses, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States."
by the inclusion of kidnaping as a major crime under 18 U.S.C. 1153.
To effectuate the purpose of the bill it is also necessary to amend 18
The reported bill also adds a new paragraph to 18 U.S.C. 1153 to
U.S.C. 113 (defining assaults within the special maritime and terri-
provide for automatic referral to State law if Congress should add an
torial jurisdiction) SO as to define and punish the offense of assault
offense to the section not otherwise found among the Federal enclave
resulting in serious bodily injury. Since 18 U.S.C. 113 presently con-
laws. Non-Indians who commit the same crimes are also prosecuted in
tains no comparable offense, an alternative solution would have been
such instances by reference to State law through the Assimilative
Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 13.6
to eliminate this offense from 18 U.S.C. 1153. This procedure was
considered unwarranted since an assault that does in fact cause serious
Finally, the reported bill includes language requiring current con-
bodily harm deserves to be classed as a major felony. The Committee
formity with State law where State law is incorporated to define and
intends to preserve the basic congressional intent in this regard, as
punish certain enumerated offenses in section 1153 other than those
reflected in the 1968 amendment that added this offense to the Major
defined and punished according to Federal law. Some courts have held
Crimes Act.
that 18 U.S.C. 1153 incorporates State law only as it existed as of the
As a further refinement to 18 U.S.C. 1153, the Committee has
amended the bill SO that the offense of "assault with intent to kill"
Section 1153 is at variance with the congressional policy as enacted in
last re-enactment of the Major Crimes Act.⁷ This interpretation of
will be "assault with intent to commit murder". 18 U.S.C. 113 (a) cur-
rently proscribes an "assault with intent to commit murder". While
238 4 See. A.2d e.g., United States V. Barnaby, 51 Fed. 20, 22 (D. Mont. 1892) ; Jenkins V. State
5 United 922, 925 (Ct. Spec. App. Md. 1968) 40 C.J.S., 938.
the substantive difference between these two descriptions of the offense
United e States States V. Barnaby, V. Altaha, supra unpublished note 4, opinion, Feb. p. 10, 1971, No. CR-70-412. See also
may not be great, there is legal authority to the effect that the two
(1971). 7 See, e.g., United States V. Burland, 441, F.2d (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 942
See United States V. Gomez, 250 F. Supp. 535 (D.N.M. 1966).
S.R. 620
S.R. 620
6
7
18 U.S.C. 13, which mandates incorporation of State law as it existed
assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily
at the time of the alleged offense. The reported bill will have the effect
injury, arson, burglary, robbery, and larceny within the Indian coun-
of conforming 18 U.S.C. 1153 to this salutary policy of current con-
try, shall be subject to the same laws and penalties as all other persons
formity regarding the assimilation of State law.
committing any of the above offenses, within the exclusive jurisdic-
tion of the United States.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
As used in this section, the offenses of burglary and incest shall be
In compliance with subsection (4) of rule XXIX of the Standing
defined and punished in accordance with the laws of the State in
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, as re-
which such offense was committed as are in force at the time of such
ported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted
offense.
is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic and exist-
In addition to the offenses of burglary and incest, any other of the
ing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman) :
above offenses which are not defined and punished by Federal law in
force within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States shall be
UNITED STATES CODE
defined and punished in accordance with the laws of the State in which
such offense was committed as are in force at the time of such offense.
TITLE 18-CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
*
§ 113. Assaults within maritime and territorial jurisdiction
Whoever, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction
of the United States, is guilty of an assault shall be punished as
follows:
*
*
(f) Assault resulting in serious bodily injury, by fine of not more
than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both.
*
§ 1153. Offenses committed within Indian country
[Any Indian who commits against the person or property of an-
other Indian or other person any of the following offenses, namely,
murder, manslaughter, rape, carnal knowledge of any female, not his
wife, who has not attained the age of sixteen years, assault with intent
to commit rape, incest, assault with intent to kill, assault with a dan-
gerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, arson,
burglary, robbery, and larceny within the Indian country, shall be
subject to the same laws and penalties as all other persons committing
any of the above offenses, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
United States.
[As used in this section, the offenses of rape and assault with intent
to commit rape shall be defined in accordance with the laws of the State
in which the offense was committed, and any Indian who commits the
offenses of rape or assault with intent to commit rape upon any female
Indian within the Indian country shall be imprisoned at the discre-
tion of the court.
[As used in this section, the offenses of burglary, assault with a
dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, and
incest shall be defined and punished in accordance with the laws of the
State in which such offense was committed.]
Any Indian who commits against the person or property of another
Indian or other person any of the following offenses, namely, murder,
manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, carnal knowledge of any female,
not his wife, who has not attained the age of sixteen years, assault with
intent to commit rape, incest, assault with intent to commit murder,
S.R. 620
S.R. 620
94TH CONGRESS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPORT
2d Session
No. 94-1038
INDIAN CRIMES ACT OF 1976
APRIL 13, 1976.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. HUNGATE, from the Committee on the Judiciary,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 2129]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
(S. 2129) to provide for the definition and punishment of certain
crimes in accordance with the Federal laws in force within the special
maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, when said
crimes are committed by an Indian, in order to insure equal treatment
for Indian and non-Indian offenders, having considered the same,
report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that
the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Page 3, immediately after line 3, insert the following
SEC. 4. Section 3242, title 18, United States Code, is amended to read
as follows:
"§ 3242. Indians committing certain offenses; acts on reservations
"All Indians committing any offense listed in and punishable under
the first paragraph of section 1153 (relating to offenses committed
within Indian country) of this title shall be tried in the same courts
and in the same manner as are all other persons committing such of-
fense within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States."
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to insure equal treatment for Indian and
non-Indian offenders who commit certain offenses in Indian country.
BACKGROUND
Two basic statutes affecting criminal jurisdiction in Indian country
are sections 1152 and 1153 of title 18, United States Code. Section 1152
provides in part:
Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the general
laws of the United States as to the punishment of offenses
57-006
2
3
committed in any place within the sole and exclusive jurisdic-
tiorari at 9 n. 3, United States V. Antelope et al. (U.S. Supreme Court
tion of the United States, except the District of Columbia,
No. 75-661, Oct. Term, 1975)
shall extend to the Indian country.1
Indian against non-Indian crimes occurring in Indian country.-
There is Federal jurisdiction over such offenses. Two commentators
Section 1152 then goes on to state that it does not extend to (1) "of-
assert that Federal jurisdiction is based on 18 U.S.C. § 1152. T. Voll-
fenses committed by one Indian against the person or property of
mann, "Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country: Tribal Sovereignty
another Indian"; (2) offenses committed by an Indian where the local
and Defendants' Rights in Conflict," 22 Kansas L. Rev. 387, 391
law of the tribe has punished the offender; and (3) "any case where,
(1974) ; L. Davis, "Criminal Jurisdiction Over Indian Country in
by treaty stipulations, the exclusive jurisdiction over such offenses is
Arizona," 1 Arizona L. Rev. 62, 71 (1959). However, it would seem
or may be secured to the Indian tribes".
that jurisdiction is based on 18 U.S.C. § 1153 when the offense is one
Section 1153 provides in part that:
of the 13 enumerated offenses. Section 1153 asserts jurisdiction when
Any Indian who commits [any of 13 enumerated offenses]
an Indian commits an enumerated offense "against the person or prop-
against the person or property of another Indian or other
erty of another Indian or other person
(emphasis added).
person
shall be subject to the same laws and penalties
Indian against Indian crimes occurring in Indian country.-Sec-
as all other persons committing any of the above offenses
tion 1153 provides for Federal jurisdiction over the 13 enumerated
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.
offenses. Jurisdiction over other offenses rests with the tribe. See T.
Vollmann, "Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country Tribal Sover-
It also provides, however, that four of the thirteen enumerated of-
eignty and Defendants' Rights in Conflict," 22 Kansas L. Rev. 387,
fenses-namely, burglary, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault
390 (1974).
resulting in serious bodily injury, and incest-"shall be defined and
Exceptions.-The above pattern is subject to two overriding excep-
punished in accordance with the laws of the State in which such of-
tions. First, some Federal laws have ceded to certain States complete
fense was committed." Two other of the 13 enumerated offenses—
or concurrent criminal jurisdiction over certain Indian country. For
rape and assault with intent to commit rape-are also defined in
example, 18 U.S.C. § 1162 lists Indian country in 6 States in which
accordance with State law, but the penalty provided is imprison-
the respective States have sole jurisdiction over "offenses committed
ment "at the discretion of the court." The definitions of, and punish-
by or against Indians
(The six States are Alaska, California,
ment for, the remaining 7 enumerated offenses are set forth in title 18
Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin.) New York has juris-
of the United States Code.
diction over crimes committed on Indian reservations in that State.
A determination of whether the State or the Federal government has
25 U.S.C. $ 232. Another example is 18 U.S.C. § 3243, which gives
jurisdiction to prosecute in a given instance and whether State or
Kansas concurrent jurisdiction over crimes "committed by or against
Federal substantive law applies, depends upon a number of variables-
Indians" and occurring on Indian reservations in that State.
the offender's race, the victim's race, and the State within which the
The second overriding exception is for crimes that are peculiarly
Indian country is located. There are four possible situations. First,
Federal. Thus, there is Federal jurisdiction when the offense is one
crimes in Indian country where a non-Indian is the offender and an
such as assaulting a Federal officer (18 U.S.C. §§ 111 and 1114) or
Indian is the victim. Second, crimes in Indian country where non-
defrauding the United States. See, e.g., Walks on Top V. United States,
Indians are both the offender and the victim. Third, crimes in Indian
372 F. 2d 422 (9th Cir. 1967), cert. den. 389 U.S. 879; Head V. Hunter,
country where an Indian is the offender and a non-Indian is the vic-
141 F. 2d 449 (10th Cir. 1944).
tim. Fourth, crimes in Indian country where Indians are both the
The Problem.-The problem to which this legislation is addressed
offender and the victim.
results from the incorporation into 18 U.S.C. § 1153 of State definitions
Non-Indian against Indian crimes occurring in Indian country.-
for 6 of the 13 enumerated offenses. If an Indian commits one of these
Section 1152 provides for Federal jurisdiction.
6 offenses against another Indian, then State substantive criminal law
Non-Indian against non-Indian crimes occurring in Indian coun-
applies. For most offenses, the penalties of the State law also apply,
try.-Although the clear language of section 1152 seems to provide
but for rape of an Indian woman and assault with intent to commit
for Federal jurisdiction, the States have jurisdiction. New York ex rel.
rape upon an Indian woman, a convicted defendant "shall be im-
Ray V. Martin, 326 U.S. 496 (1946) ; Draper V. United States, 164
prisoned at the discretion of the court."
U.S. 240 (1896) ; United States V. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621 (1881).
The Martin, Draper and McBratney decisions do not appear to be
2 The Antelope case involves the constitutionality of leaving to State jurisdiction non-
constitutionally-based and would not seem to preclude the exercise of
Indian against non-Indian crimes that take place in Indian country. In Antelope, the
Ninth Circuit reversed the first degree murder conviction of defendant Indians, who had
Federal jurisdiction. Accord, United States' Petition for Writ of Cer-
been tried under Federal law. Had they been non-Indians, they would have been tried under
State law. The Ninth Circuit noted that the law of the State involved (Idaho) is stricter
in its requirements of proof than is Federal law. It concluded that the sole basis for the
1 "Indian country" is defined in 18 U.S.C. $ 1151 to mean: (1) all land within the
disparate treatment of Indians and non-Indians was race and that Indians were put at a
limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States government
serious disadvantage that could not be justified.
(2) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States; and (3)
Because of the pendency of this litigation, the legislation does not address this issue.
all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including
3 Accord, Note, "Red, White, and Gray: Equal Protection and the American Indian," 21
rights-of-way.
Stanford L. Rev. 1236, 1241 (1969).
H.R. 1038
H.R. 1038
4
5
If, on the other hand, a non-Indian commits one of these 6 offenses
The Committee also agrees with the Attorney General that "a similar
against an Indian, Federal substantive criminal law and penalties
constitutional problem is potentially present within the provisions of
apply. The results can be that, in identical circumstances, an Indian
Section 1153 for rape and assault with intent to commit rape. 8 As
is treated more severely than a non-Indian.
the Commissioner of Indian Affairs has pointed out
For example, defendant Indian is charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1153
the Federal Government is now unable to prosecute Indians
with assault with a deadly weapon in Arizona Indian country. Pur-
who commit assault resulting in serious bodily harm in Indian
suant to $ 1153, defendant Indian will be tried under the provisions of
country in either of these two jurisdictions [Eighth and
Arizona law. A non-Indian defendant who commits the same offense
Ninth Circuits], which encompass a major portion of Indian
is charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1152 and will be tried under the provi-
country under Federal criminal jurisdiction. The problem
sions of 18 U.S.C. § 113 ("assaults within maritime and territorial
is acute and leaves Indian communities without the protec-
jurisdiction").
tion not only of Federal law but of any law except in the
The penalty under Arizona law for the first offense is imprison-
sense that a person might be prosecuted for a lesser included
ment for not less than 5 years. The maximum penalty under Federal
offense.
law is a $1,000 fine and imprisonment for not more than 5 years. Thus,
if an Indian and a non-Indian commit the same offense, the Indian
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION
faces the possibility of longer imprisonment.
Two Circuit Courts of Appeals-the Eighth and Ninth-have held
SECTION 1
that this denies Indians due process of law as guaranteed by the Fifth
Amendment.5 United States V. Big Crow, 523 F.2d 955 (8th Cir. 1975)
Section 1 of the bill provides that the short title of the legislation
United States V. Cleveland, 503 F.2d 1067 (9th Cir. 1974). The Tenth
shall be the "Indian Crimes Act of 1976.'
Circuit has sustained the statute against a challenge that it sets up an
unconstitutional racial classification. United States V. Analla, 490 F.2d
SECTION 2
1204 (10th Cir. 1974), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 419
U.S. 813 (1974).⁶
Section 2 of the bill makes several changes in section 1153 of title 18,
The Committee agrees with the Attorney General that the effect of
United States Code.
the Big Crow and Cleveland decisions by the Eighth and Ninth
First, to correct the constitutional defect found by the Eighth and
Circuits
Ninth Circuits, it provides that the crimes of rape, assault with intent
to commit rape, assault with a dangerous weapon and assault resulting
has been to invalidate the authority presently available to the
in serious bodily injury shall be defined and punished in accordance
government under Section 1153 to prosecute Indians who
with Federal law. Thus, an Indian and a non-Indian who commit any
commit either the crime of assault with a dangerous weapon
of these four offenses in Indian country will be held to the same
or assault resulting in serious bodily injury on Indian
standard.10
reservations in states such as Arizona, where the local law is
The bill also expands the list of enumerated offenses to include kid-
more severe than Federal law applicable within the Indian
naping. Under present law, a non-Indian who kidnaps an Indian in
Country."
Indian country would be prosecuted under § 1152. That section
incorporates the definition and penalty of the Federal kidnaping
It may also work the other way-an Indian may be treated more leniently. In Gray V.
United States, 394 F. 2d 96 (9th Cir. 1968), defendant Indians challenged that part of 18
statute (18 U.S.C. § 1201), which imposes a punishment of up to life
U.S.C. § 1153 prescribing imprisonment "at the discretion of the court" for rape of an
Indian woman. The Ninth Circuit rejected the challenge, in part because "Appellants here
imprisonment.
seek to challenge as unconstitutional this statute, enacted by Congress, which is of bene-
However, an Indian who kidnaps someone in Indian country would
fit to them." Gray V. United States, 394 F. 2d 96, 98 (9th Cir. 1968).
The Gray decision is sharply criticized in Note. "Red. White, and Gray: Equal Protection
be subject to prosecution only in a tribal court. Tribal courts can im-
and the American Indian," 21 Stanford L. Rev. 1236 (1969).
pose a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment and a $500 fine.¹¹
5 Analytically, the Indians are denied the equal protection of the laws, but the
Fifth Amendment contains no equal protection clause. However, the Supreme Court has
Adding kidnaping to the list of enumerated offenses in § 1153 elimi-
held that a denial of equal protection may be "so unjustifiable as to be violative of due
process." Bolling V. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499 (1954).
nates this disparity.
6 The Senate Report cites Analla for the proposition that Federal courts "have held 18
U.S.C. 1153 invalid as applied to Indian defendants where the State law's definition or
8 Id.
punishment of the offenses was more onerous than that which would have applied to
9 Letter from Commissioner of Indian Affairs Morris Thompson to Judiciary Committee
a non-Indian charged with the same crime under 18 U.S.C. 1152." Senate Report 94-620,
Chairman Peter W. Rodino, Jr., February 12, 1976.
at 2-3.
10 Two offenses-incest and burglary-are left to be defined and punished by State law.
The Senate Report's citation appears to be in error. Analla sustained the constitutional-
This will not give rise to the constitutional problem found by the Eighth and Ninth Cir-
ity of § 1153 in the face of an equal protection-due process attack. See United States V.
cuits with respect to assault with a dangerous weapon and assault resulting in serious
Analla, 490 F. 2d 1204. 1208 (10th Cir. 1974). vacated and remanded on other grounds,
bodily injury. This is S0 because a non-Indian who commits the offenses of burglary or
419 U.S. 813 (1974). In SO doing. Analla overruled, sub silentio, an earlier decision of a
incest would also be tried using State law definitions and penalties. Since neither burglary
district court within the Tenth Circuit. which had held "The portion of section 1153
nor incest is a Federally-defined crime, the Assimilative Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 13)
which relegates the definition and punishment of assault with a dangerous weapon to state
provides that State law definitions and punishments are applied by the Federal courts.
law places defendant at a serious disadvantage solely because he is an Indian. This racial
The bill also provides that the State law to be used to define and punish the act is that
classification is not reasonably related to any proper governmental objective and is there-
which was in effect at the time the act was committed. rather than the State law pro-
fore arbitrary and invidious in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amend-
visions in effect at the time of the last reenactment of 8 1153.
ment." United States V. Boone. 347 F. Supp. 1031. 1035 (D. N. Mex. 1972).
11 25 U.S.C. § 1302(7).
7 Letter from Attorney General Edward H. Levi to Speaker Carl Albert, May 20, 1975.
H.R. 1038
H.R. 1038
6
7
Section 2 also makes a conforming change in the title of one of the
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
enumerated offenses in § 1153. Present § 1153 refers to "assault with
intent to kill." The actual title of the offense defined in 18 U.S.C. § 113
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
(a) is "assault with intent to commit murder," SO the bill changes the
of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as re-
title of the enumerated offense in § 1153 to conform to the title in 18
ported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is
U.S.C. § 113 (a).
enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law
SECTION 3
in which no change is proposed is shown in roman) :
Section 3 of the bill amends 18 U.S.C. § 113 by adding a new sub-
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE
section defining and prescribing punishment for the offense of assault
resulting in serious bodily injury. This is necessary because § 113,
*
which defines Federal assault offenses, does not presently contain this
§ 113. Assaults within maritime and territorial jurisdiction.
offense. Since this offense is one of the enumerated offenses in § 1153
Whoever, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of
that is to be defined and punished in accordance with Federal law,
the United States, is guilty of an assault shall be punished as follows:
this amendment to § 113 is necessary to give substance to the inclusion
(a) Assault with intent to commit murder or rape, by imprisonment
of this offense in § 1153.
for not more than twenty years.
SECTION 4
(b) Assault with intent to commit any felony except murder or
Section 4 amends the venue statute SO that venue is provided for all
rape, by fine of not more than $3,000 or imprisonment for not more
offenses punishable under section 1153.
than ten years, or both.
(c) Assault with a dangerous weapon, with intent to do bodily harm,
OVERSIGHT
and without just cause or excuse, by fine of not more than $1,000 or
imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
The committee makes no oversight findings.
(d) Assault by striking, beating, or wounding, by fine of not more
than $500 or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both.
COST
(e) Simple assault, by fine of not more than $300 or imprisonment
for not more than three months, or both.
Pursuant to clause 7, rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Repre-
(f) Assault resulting in serious bodily injury, by fine of not more
sentatives, the committee estimates that no new cost to the United
than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both.
States is entailed by S. 2129.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 1153. Offenses committed within Indian country
NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY
Any Indian who commits against the person or property of another
2129 creates no new budget authority.
Indian or other person any of the following offenses, namely, murder,
manslaughter, kidnaping, rape, carnal knowledge of any female, not
STATEMENT OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE
his wife, who has not attained the age of sixteen years, assault with
intent to commit rape, incest, assault with intent to [kill] commit
No statement on this legislation has been received from the House
murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious
Committee on the Budget.
bodily injury, arson, burglary, robbery, and larceny within the Indian
country, shall be subject to the same laws and penalties as all other
STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
persons committing any of the above offenses, within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the United States.
No statement on this legislation has been received from the House
As used in this section, the offenses [of rape and assault with intent
Committee on Government Operations.
to commit rape burglary and incest shall be defined and punished
in accordance with the laws of the State in which [the] such offense
INFLATION IMPACT STATEMENT
was committed [and any Indian who commits the offenses of rape or
This legislation will have no foreseeable inflationary impact on
assault with intent to commit rape upon any female Indian within the
Indian country shall be imprisoned at the discretion of the court. as
prices or costs in the operation of the national economy.
are in force at the time of such off ense.
COMMITTEE VOTE
[As used in this section. the offenses of burglary, assault with a
dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, and incest
S. 2129 was reported out of Committee on Tuesday, April 6, 1976,
shall be defined and punished in accordance with the laws of the State
by voice vote. Twenty-four Members of the Committee were present.
in which such offense was committed.]
H.R. 1038
H.R. 1038
8
In addition to the offenses of burglary and incest, any other of the
above offenses which are not defined and punished by Federal law in
force within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States shall be
defined and punished in accordance with the laws of the State in which
such offense was committed as are in force at the time of such offense.
*
*
*
*
*
*
§ 3242. Indians committing certain offenses; acts on reservations[.]
All Indians committing any [of the following offenses; namely,
murder, manslaughter, rape, carnal knowledge of any female, not his
wife, who has not attained the age of sixteen years, assault with intent
to commit rape, incest, assault with intent to kill, assault with a dan-
gerous weapon, arson, burglary, robbery, and larceny on and within
the Indian country shall be tried in the same courts, and in the same
manner, as are all other persons committing any of the above crimes]
offense listed in and punishable under the first paragraph of section
1153 (relating to offenses committed within Indian country) of this
title shall be tried in the same courts, and in the same manner as are
all other persons committing such offense within the exclusive jurisdic-
tion of the United States.
H.R. 1038
S. 2129
Minety-fourth Congress of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the nineteenth day of January,
one thousand nine hundred and seventy-six
An Art
To provide for the definition and punishment of certain crimes in accordance
with the Federal laws in force within the special maritime and territorial
jurisdiction of the United States when said crimes are committed by an Indian
in order to insure equal treatment for Indian and non-Indian offenders.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may
be cited as the "Indian Crimes Act of 1976".
SEC. 2. Section 1153, title 18, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
"§ 1153. Offenses committed within Indian country
"Any Indian who commits against the person or property of
another Indian or other person any of the following offenses, namely,
murder, manslaughter, kidnaping, rape, carnal knowledge of any
female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of sixteen years,
assault with intent to commit rape, incest, assault with intent to com-
mit murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in
serious bodily injury, arson, burglary, robbery, and larceny within
the Indian country, shall be subject to the same laws and penalties
as all other persons committing any of the above offenses, within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.
"As used in this section, the offenses of burglary and incest shall
be defined and punished in accordance with the laws of the State in
which such offense was committed as are in force at the time of such
offense.
"In addition to the offenses of burglary and incest, any other of the
above offenses which are not defined and punished by Federal law in
force within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States shall be
defined and punished in accordance with the laws of the State in
which such offense was committed as are in force at the time of such
offense.".
SEC. 3. Section 113 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
"(f) Assault resulting in serious bodily injury, by fine of not more
than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both."
S. 2129-2
SEC. 4. Section 3242, title 18, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
"§ 3242. Indians committing certain offenses; acts on reservations
"All Indians committing any offense listed in the first paragraph
of and punishable under section 1153 (relating to offenses committed
within Indian country) of this title shall be tried in the same courts
and in the same manner as are all other persons committing such
offense within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.".
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
May 24, 1976
Dear Mr. Director:
The following bills were received at the White
House on May 24th:
S. 2129
8. 2498
8. 3399
)
Please let the President have reports and
recommendations as to the approval of these
bills as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Robert D. Linder
Chief Executive Clerk
The Honorable James T. Lynn
Director
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, D.C.