United States v. Hebert
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Vacated
Sitting en banc, the Tenth Circuit overruled its 2001 Prentiss II precedent and held that in prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 1152 where the victim is an Indian, the defendant’s Indian status is an affirmative defense. The defendant, not the Government, now bears both the burden of production and the ultimate burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence; the court therefore vacated the prior panel opinions that had reversed the convictions and remanded the consolidated cases of Dennis Hebert and Joel Ruiz for further proceedings consistent with the new rule.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether, in a § 1152 prosecution with an Indian victim, the defendant’s Indian/non-Indian status is an element the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt or an affirmative defense for which the defendant bears some or all burdens of proof.
Circuit Positions
Indian status is an affirmative defense; defendant bears both production and persuasion burdens
Defendant bears production burden, but Government retains ultimate burden of persuasion to disprove Indian status beyond a reasonable doubt
Conflict Summary
Circuits disagree on who must prove the defendant’s Indian status under § 1152. The Tenth Circuit now treats Indian status as an affirmative defense, placing both the burden of production and persuasion on the defendant. The Fifth and Ninth Circuits treat Indian status as an affirmative defense only for production purposes, but require the Government to disprove Indian status beyond a reasonable doubt once the issue is raised. (Other circuits, and the former Tenth-Circuit rule, treated non-Indian status as a formal element the Government must plead and prove.)