## Facts

- Merle Denezpi, a member of the Navajo Nation, was involved in an incident on the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation in Colorado.
- A Bureau of Indian Affairs officer filed a complaint in a Court of Indian Offenses (a “CFR court”) alleging three charges from the same episode: (1) assault and battery under the Ute Mountain Ute Code, (2) terroristic threats under federal regulations, and (3) false imprisonment under federal regulations.
- Denezpi pleaded guilty in the CFR court to the assault-and-battery charge defined by the Ute Mountain Ute Code; the two regulatory charges were dismissed.
- The CFR court sentenced Denezpi to time served (140 days).
- About six months later, a federal grand jury indicted Denezpi in the District of Colorado for aggravated sexual abuse in Indian country under the Major Crimes Act, based on the same underlying incident.
- Denezpi was convicted and sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment.
- He argued the federal prosecution violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because the CFR court operates under federal administration and the first case was initiated by a federal officer.

## Issues

1. Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a federal prosecution for aggravated sexual abuse in Indian country when the defendant previously pleaded guilty in a CFR court to a tribal-law assault-and-battery offense arising from the same incident.
2. Whether double-jeopardy analysis turns on the forum and prosecuting authority or on the sovereign source that defined each charged offense.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed Denezpi’s conviction (6–3).
- The Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar successive prosecutions for distinct offenses arising from a single act, even if the same sovereign prosecutes them.
- The first conviction was for a tribal offense defined by the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe; the second was for a federal offense defined by Congress.
- The federal administration of the CFR court and the identity of the charging officer did not convert the tribal-law offense into a federal offense for double-jeopardy purposes.
- Dissent (Gorsuch, J., joined in part by Sotomayor and Kagan): argued CFR-court prosecutions are federal in substance because of federal control, so the United States effectively prosecuted Denezpi twice.

## Legal Principles

- The Double Jeopardy Clause bars being twice put in jeopardy “for the same offence,” meaning the same violation of law, not merely the same conduct.
- Under the dual-sovereignty doctrine, offenses defined by different sovereigns are different “offences” and may be separately prosecuted, even if they share elements and arise from the same act.
- Double-jeopardy analysis focuses on who defined the offense (the lawgiving sovereign), not on the prosecuting official or the court that adjudicated the charge.
- A CFR-court conviction for an offense defined by a tribal code is treated as a tribal offense for purposes of identifying the “offence” under the Double Jeopardy Clause.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a prior CFR-court conviction for a tribal-code offense does not bar a later federal prosecution under the Major Crimes Act based on the same incident because the prosecutions involve distinct offenses defined by different sovereigns.


Denezpi v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1838 (2022)