United States v. Roy Wilbur Hornbuckle
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision. The 3 that cite it most often are listed here.
- State v. Nobles (N.C. Ct. App. 2018)
- State v. Dugan (N.C. Ct. App. 1981)
- Eastern Band v. Lynch (4th Cir. 1980)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Roy Wilbur Hornbuckle, an Indian, was convicted of assaulting another Indian with a dangerous weapon on the Cherokee Indian Reservation, known as the Qualla Boundary in Western North Carolina, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113 (c) and 1153. His principal contention is that North Carolina has exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed on the reservation. Judge Parker related the history of the Qualla Boundary and of United States guardianship over the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians in United States v. Wright, 53 F.2d 300 (4th Cir. 1931), cert. denied, 285 U.S. 539, 52 S.Ct. 312, 76 L.Ed. 932 (1932). For the reasons set forth in that opinion, the Eastern Band of the Cherokees has been recognized as an Indian tribe, and the land they occupy is subject to federal statutes pertaining to Indian reservations. E. g., Haile v. Saunooke, 246 F.2d 293 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 893 78 S.Ct. 268, 2 L.Ed.2d 191 (1957); United States v. Parton, 132 F.2d 886 (4th Cir. 1943). Contrary to Hornbuckle’s contention, the United States and North Carolina exercise concurrent criminal jurisdiction over the reservation. State v. McAlhaney, 220 N.C. 387, 17 S.E.2d 352 (1941).
*392 We find no merit in Hornbuckle’s other assignments of error concerning the sufficiency of the evidence and the court’s charge to the jury.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.