In re INGRAMAnnotate this Case
In re INGRAM
1902 OK 57
69 P. 868
12 Okla. 54
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
In the matter of the Application of CHARLES INGRAM for a Writ of Habeas Carpus.
Original Proceeding in Habeas Corpus.
¶0 1. LARCENY--Punishable, Where. Larceny when committed on an Indian reservation in the Territory of Oklahoma, is a crime punishable under the laws of the United States, and the federal side of the district court having Jurisdiction over such reservation is the proper forum in which to try and punish such offense.
2. "INDIAN COUNTRY" DEFINED. The Osage Indian reservation in Oklahoma, is "Indian Country" within the meaning of the United States Statutes, section 445, which extends to the "Indian Country" the general laws of the United States as to the punishment of crimes committed in any place within the sole and exclusive Jurisdiction of the United States, and as interpreted by Justice Brewer on the case of In re Wilson,
Buckner & Son, for petitioner.
J. C. Robberts, Attorney General, per contra.
BURFORD, C. J.:
¶1 The petitioner, Charles Ingram, was convicted in the district court of Pawnee county sitting as a United States court, for the crime of larceny, committed in the Osage Indian reservation, and sentenced to imprisonment for one year in the federal jail, at Guthrie. He now applies for a writ of habeas corpus to secure his discharge.
¶2 The contention of the petitioner is that the court which sentenced him had no jurisdiction of the offense committed in the Osage Indian reservation. In support of this position we are referred to the case of the United States v. Pridgeon,
¶3 But the withdrawal of an Indian reservation from the Indian Territory does not make it any less, or change its character from "Indian country," as contemplated by sec. 2145, R. S. U. S., 1878, which extends to the "Indian country" the general laws of the United States as to the punishment of crimes in any place within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, the punishment of which is not otherwise provided. The term "Indian country," as used in this act, has been frequently construed by the supreme court of the United States. ( In re Wilson,
¶4 The Osage Indian reservation in Oklahoma is Indian country, as such term has been defined in the cases above referred to.
¶5 We reviewed all the questions presented by petitioner in the case of Goodson v. The United States,
¶6 The crime of larceny is made punishable by the laws of the United States when committed at any place within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. And, likewise, when committed at any place in the "Indian country." The district court of Pawnee county, when exercising the jurisdiction of the United States court, had jurisdiction of the petitioner and the crime with which he was charged, and he is not illegally imprisoned.
¶7 The writ is denied at the costs of the petitioner, and the prisoner remanded to the custody of the United States marshal.
¶8 Irwin, J., absent; all the other Justices concurring.