United States v. Ruiz

Circuit 10Jan 12, 2026

Split Score

SplitScore: 47/100

Case Summary

Disposition

Vacated

The Tenth Circuit vacated Joel Ruiz’s conviction for sexual abuse of a minor because the Government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ruiz is a non-Indian, an essential element for federal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1152 in this circuit. The court remanded for further proceedings and signaled that the circuit’s position—that non-Indian status is an element rather than an affirmative defense—conflicts with several sister circuits.

View Full Opinion Document (PDF)

Circuit Split Identified

Legal Issue

Whether a defendant’s non-Indian status under 18 U.S.C. § 1152 is an element the Government must plead and prove beyond a reasonable doubt or an affirmative defense the defendant must raise.

Circuit Positions

Circuit 10(this circuit)

Non-Indian status is an element of the offense that the prosecution must plead and prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Circuit 5Circuit 8Circuit 9

Non-Indian status is an affirmative defense; the defendant bears the burden of production (with the Government retaining the ultimate burden of proof).

Conflict Summary

The Tenth Circuit treats a defendant’s non-Indian status as an essential element of a § 1152 offense that the Government must charge in the indictment and prove at trial. In contrast, the Ninth Circuit—and circuits that have followed it—hold that non-Indian status is an affirmative defense; the defendant bears the initial burden of production, with the Government retaining only the ultimate burden of persuasion once the issue is raised.

Parties & Counsel

Parties

Appellant:Joel Ruiz
Appellee:United States of America

Legal Counsel

Appellant:Violet N. D. Edelman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of Public Defender, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Appellee:Caitlin L. Dillon, Assistant United States Attorney (with Ryan Ellison, United States Attorney on the brief), Office of the United States Attorney, District of New Mexico