## Facts

- Christopher Patrick Cruz had Blackfeet ancestry (about 22% Blackfeet) and had been given “descendant” status by the Blackfeet Tribe, which provided access to some benefits but not tribal enrollment.
- Cruz was not eligible for enrollment under the Blackfeet Tribe’s blood-quantum rules and had never used the available tribal services.
- Cruz returned to the Blackfeet Reservation and stayed at a motel on the reservation.
- Outside the motel, Cruz encountered Eudelma White Grass, an enrolled tribal member who was intoxicated; an altercation occurred, and White Grass was severely injured.
- The United States prosecuted Cruz in federal court for assault under 18 U.S.C. § 1153 (Major Crimes Act), making federal jurisdiction depend on whether Cruz qualified as an “Indian” for purposes of § 1153.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence at trial was sufficient, under the Ninth Circuit’s test for “Indian” status, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Cruz was an “Indian” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1153.
2. Whether the district court plainly erred by denying Cruz’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that the government failed to establish federal jurisdictional facts relating to Indian status.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the conviction.
- The court held the government’s proof failed the second prong of the controlling “Indian status” test because the evidence did not show tribal or federal recognition of Cruz as an Indian.
- Applying plain-error review to the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal, the court concluded the error was plain and required reversal because the conviction could not stand on the trial record.

## Legal Principles

- In prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 1153, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is an “Indian” for purposes of federal criminal jurisdiction in Indian country.
- The Ninth Circuit’s controlling test requires: (1) some degree of Indian blood, and (2) recognition as an Indian by a tribe or by the federal government.
- Recognition is evaluated using multiple, non-exclusive factors; ancestry alone, even combined with presence or residence in Indian country, is insufficient without evidence satisfying recognition factors.
- When the evidentiary record cannot support a required jurisdictional element, denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal may constitute plain error warranting reversal.

## Conclusion

The conviction was reversed because, although Cruz had some Indian blood, the government did not present sufficient evidence that a tribe or the federal government recognized him as an Indian under the governing test, defeating § 1153 jurisdiction and requiring acquittal.


United States v. Cruz, 554 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2009)