X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Decided and Entered: March 4, 2004 94793 In the Matter of CLINTON R. HILL, Respondent, v ANTHONY P. EPPOLITO, as Judge of the City Court of the City of Oneida, Respondent, and DONALD F. CERIO JR., as District Attorney for the County of Madison, Appellant. ________________________________ Calendar Date: January 8, 2004 Before: Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Rose and Kane, JJ. __________ Donald F. Cerio Jr., District Attorney, Wampsville, appellant pro se. Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason & Silberberg P.C., New York City (Robert J. Anello of counsel), for Clinton R. Hill, respondent. Mackenzie Hughes L.L.P., Syracuse (Peter D. Carmen of counsel), and Zuckerman Spaeder L.L.P., Washington D.C., for Oneida Indian Nation of New York, amicus curiae. __________ Crew III, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (O’Brien III, J.), entered July 17, 2003 in Madison County, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to vacate a decision of the Oneida City Court. On July 11, 2002 petitioner, a member of the Oneida Indian Nation, was charged in Oneida City Court with the crime of harassment in the second degree. The charge arose out of an altercation between petitioner and another Oneida Indian that took place on Indian Nation property. While that charge was pending, a criminal complaint was filed against petitioner in the Nation tribal court charging petitioner with assault, harassment and disorderly conduct arising out of the same transaction giving rise to the City Court charge.[1] While the harassment charge was pending in City Court, petitioner was tried and acquitted of the charges of assault and harassment in the tribal court and the charge of disorderly conduct was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal. As a consequence, petitioner moved to dismiss the City Court charge on double jeopardy grounds. That motion was denied, prompting petitioner to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court seeking to vacate the order of City Court. Supreme Court granted the petition and vacated the City Court order, resulting in this appeal by respondent District Attorney for Madison County. The Criminal Procedure Law provides, in pertinent part, that [a] person may not be separately prosecuted for two offenses based upon the same act or criminal transaction unless * * * [t]he offenses as defined have substantially different elements (CPL 40.20 [2] [a]). It further provides that a person ‘is prosecuted’ for an offense * * * when he is charged therewith by an accusatory instrument filed in a court of this state or of any jurisdiction within the United States (CPL 40.30 [1]). We already have observed that the elements of the crimes of harassment as defined in the Oneida Indian Nation Penal Code and the New York Penal Law are identical (see n 1, supra). The issue here then distills to whether the tribal court, in which petitioner was tried and acquitted, constitutes a court of any jurisdiction within the United States. We believe it does and, therefore, affirm. It is beyond cavil that Indian tribes are separate sovereigns whose right of internal self-government includes the right to prescribe laws applicable to tribe members and to enforce those laws by criminal sanctions (United States v Wheeler, 435 US 313, 322 [1978]). The Oneida Indian Nation has enacted a Penal Code and Rules of Criminal Procedure providing the mechanism for enforcement of that Code, and its tribal courts clearly qualify as courts of any jurisdiction within the United States.[2] With regard to the District Attorney’s contention that the failure of the Criminal Procedure Law to specifically address tribal courts implies their intended exclusion, we need note only that the fact that a statute contains no exception creates a strong presumption that none was intended (see Matter of Pokoik v Department of Health Servs., County of Suffolk, 72 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes ‘ 213). We have considered the District Attorney’s remaining arguments and find them equally unavailing. Mercure, J.P., Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs. [1] Of note is the fact that the elements of harassment found in the Oneida Indian Nation Penal Code are identical to those found in the Penal Law under which petitioner was charged in City Court. [2] Courts in at least two of our sister states have concluded that prosecutions in tribal courts preclude subsequent prosecutions in state courts (see Booth v State, 903 P2d 1079 [Alaska 1995]; People v Morgan, 785 P2d 1294 [Colo 1990]; but see State of Washington v Moses, 145 Wn 2d 370, 37 P3d 1216 [2002]).

 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

More From ALM

With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
View Now
Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
View Now
Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
View Now
September 24, 2024
Chicago, IL

Women, Influence & Power in Law Awards honors women lawyers who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession.


Learn More
September 23, 2024 - September 25, 2024
Chicago, IL

WIPL is the original global forum facilitating women-to-women exchange on leadership and legal issues.


Learn More
September 26, 2024
Boston, MA

The New England Legal Awards serves as a testament to the outstanding contributions and achievements made by legal professionals.


Learn More

Philadelphia Plaintiff litigation firm seeks an associate attorney with at least 2 years' experience to join our team handling personal inju...


Apply Now ›

Position OverviewThe United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is accepting applications for the full-time, permanent positio...


Apply Now ›

A prominent AV-rated Education Law firm seeks an associate with 5+ years experience. The role will primarily involve advice and counsel in ...


Apply Now ›