From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State, in Interest of C.R

Utah Court of Appeals
Nov 10, 2005
2005 UT App. 486 (Utah Ct. App. 2005)

Opinion

Case No. 20040281-CA.

Filed November 10, 2005. (Not For Official Publication).

Appeal from the Eighth District Juvenile, Vernal Department, 170075, The Honorable Larry A. Steele.

Michael L. Humiston, Heber City, for Appellant.

Mark L. Shurtleff and Joanne C. Slotnik, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.

Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Orme.


MEMORANDUM DECISION


Appellant C.R. appeals a juvenile court judgment of wanton destruction of protected wildlife, a third degree felony if committed by an adult, in violation of Utah Code section 23-20-4.See Utah Code Ann. § 23-20-4 (Supp. 2005). Among other issues, C.R. asserts that the State did not have jurisdiction over this case because he was hunting in Indian Country. "Whether the juvenile court had jurisdiction is a question of law which we review under a correction of error standard." Department of Human Servs. v. B.R., 2002 UT App 25, ¶ 6, 42 P.3d 390 (quotations and citations omitted).

The facts of this case are, in all relevant respects, identical to the facts in State v. Reber, 2005 UT App 485. In that case, this court held that the State lacked jurisdiction to prosecute a violation of section 23-20-4 when committed in "Indian Country."See id.

As in Reber, we vacate the judgment in this case for lack of jurisdiction.

WE CONCUR: James Z. Davis, Judge and Gregory K. Orme, Judge.


Summaries of

State, in Interest of C.R

Utah Court of Appeals
Nov 10, 2005
2005 UT App. 486 (Utah Ct. App. 2005)
Case details for

State, in Interest of C.R

Case Details

Full title:State of Utah, in the interest of C.R., a person under eighteen years of…

Court:Utah Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 10, 2005

Citations

2005 UT App. 486 (Utah Ct. App. 2005)

Citing Cases

Reber v. Steele

Id. ("`As a general rule, Indians enjoy exclusive treaty rights to hunt and fish on lands reserved to them. .…

Reber v. Steele

The Utah Court of Appeals agreed, concluding that "the state lacked jurisdiction to prosecute a violation of…