United States v. Reza-Ramos, No. 11-10029 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant, a non-Indian, appealed his conviction under the federal murder statute, 18 U.S.C. 111, for the murder of the victim on the Tohono O’odham Indian reservation in Arizona. The court concluded that section 1111 was applicable to defendant under the Indian General Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 1152, which makes federal criminal law applicable in federal enclaves when the defendant is a non-Indian and the victim is an Indian, because the government adduced sufficient evidence to establish that the victim in this case was an Indian. The court held that the evidence introduced at trial, taken in the light most favorable to the government, was sufficient to establish that defendant acted with premeditation and, therefore, the court affirmed defendant's conviction for first degree premeditated murder. Because the district court erred in defining the term “burglary” in section 1111 by reference to Arizona’s third-degree burglary statute, and this error was not harmless, the court vacated defendant's conviction for felony murder.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part a criminal judgment, and remanded, in a case in which a non-Indian was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1111, the federal murder statute, for a murder on the Tohono O’odham Indian reservation. The panel held that § 1111 was applicable to the defendant under the Indian General Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1152, which (among other things) makes federal criminal law applicable in federal enclaves when the defendant is a non-Indian and the victim is an Indian. The panel held that the government had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was an Indian, a jurisdictional element in this case, and that the government adduced sufficient evidence to establish both prongs of the Indian status test. The panel also held that the evidence introduced at trial, taken in the light most favorable to the government, was sufficient to establish that Reza-Ramos acted with premeditation. The panel therefore affirmed the defendant’s conviction for first degree premeditated murder. The panel vacated the defendant’s conviction for felony murder because the district court erred in defining the term “burglary” in § 1111 by reference under the Assimilated Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13, to Arizona’s third-degree UNITED STATES V. REZA-RAMOS 3 burglary statute. The panel concluded that this error was not harmless because burglary, in the context of § 1111, is defined as the breaking and entering into a building or other structure with intent to commit a crime, and the government did not produce overwhelming evidence of a breaking.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.