## Facts

- James Donnelly, a non-Indian, was indicted in federal court for murdering Chickasaw, a member of the Klamath Tribe.
- The indictment alleged the homicide occurred within the Extension of the Hoopa Valley Reservation in Humboldt County, California.
- Evidence placed the shooting in or near the Klamath River, and the trial proceeded on the theory that it occurred within the riverbed below ordinary high-water mark.
- Donnelly was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- At trial, Donnelly sought to introduce evidence that a deceased Indian, Joe Dick, had confessed shortly before death that he shot Chickasaw; the court excluded the confession as hearsay.

## Issues

1. Whether the Extension of the Hoopa Valley Reservation was lawfully established by executive order under federal authority and included the Klamath River bed at the alleged crime site.
2. Whether federal criminal law applied, giving federal courts jurisdiction over a non-Indian’s murder of an Indian in that area under Revised Statutes §§ 2145 and 2146.
3. Whether a deceased third party’s alleged confession to the homicide was admissible notwithstanding the hearsay rule.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- The Court held the reservation extension was validly created by executive order under a continuing statutory authorization and included the riverbed where the shooting occurred.
- The Court held the locus was “Indian country” within the meaning of the federal statutes extending federal criminal law to Indian country, supporting federal jurisdiction over the charged offense.
- The Court held the third-party confession was properly excluded as hearsay because it did not fall within a recognized exception.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory authorization to the Executive to set apart Indian reservations from the public domain may constitute a continuing power, permitting later executive orders extending reservation boundaries.
- Whether a river is navigable for local property-law purposes is determined by state law; if non-navigable, title to the riverbed may remain in the United States and be included within a federal reservation.
- “Indian country,” for purposes of federal criminal statutes, includes reservations set apart from the public domain and is not limited to lands where Indians retain original aboriginal possessory rights.
- Under Revised Statutes § 2145, the phrase “sole and exclusive jurisdiction” describes the federal criminal laws extended to Indian country and does not require constitutionally exclusive federal territorial jurisdiction over the land.
- A non-Indian’s offense against an Indian in Indian country falls within federal criminal jurisdiction as provided by federal statutes and policy.
- A third party’s out-of-court confession offered for its truth is inadmissible hearsay absent a recognized exception; at the time, declarations against interest were not generally extended to penal admissions in criminal cases.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld federal jurisdiction over a non-Indian’s murder of an Indian within a validly extended reservation that included the Klamath River bed, and it affirmed exclusion of a deceased third party’s alleged confession as inadmissible hearsay under then-prevailing evidentiary rules.


Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243 (1913)