Law on Native Land: State v. Crosson

In 2023, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals issued another important decision in State v. Crosson, 2023 OK CR 23. This case addressed whether state judges have the authority to issue arrest warrants for tribal citizens when crimes occur inside Indian Country. The court’s ruling reinforced state judicial procedure even within reservation boundaries.

The case background

The issue arose when state courts were asked to issue arrest warrants for Indian defendants in cases tied to reservation lands. Defense attorneys argued that because the state lacked jurisdiction under McGirt, state judges could not even issue warrants for tribal citizens. They claimed such warrants were void on their face because the underlying prosecution was outside the state’s power.

What the court decided

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected that argument. It held that state judges do have the authority to issue arrest warrants so long as the charging documents establish probable cause. The question of whether the state ultimately has jurisdiction to prosecute is separate and can be litigated later.

In other words, the validity of a warrant does not depend on whether the state ultimately prevails on jurisdiction. Warrants are procedural tools that allow the criminal process to begin, but they do not resolve the underlying question of which sovereign has prosecuting authority.

Why this ruling matters

The Crosson decision matters because it preserves state criminal process at the front end of a case, even when jurisdiction is uncertain. Its consequences include:

✔️ State judges must continue issuing warrants when the legal requirements are met
✔️ Indian defendants can still challenge jurisdiction, but not at the warrant stage
✔️ Tribes and defense lawyers must be prepared to raise jurisdictional objections later in the litigation

The bigger picture

Together, Deo v. Parish and State v. Crosson illustrate how Oklahoma courts are narrowing the practical impact of McGirt. By treating jurisdictional challenges as personal or territorial and by upholding state warrant procedures, the Court of Criminal Appeals has made it harder for defendants to block state action at the outset.

Key takeaway

State v. Crosson did not grant Oklahoma full authority in Indian Country. But it clarified that state courts will continue issuing arrest warrants, and defendants must fight jurisdiction later. This decision is another example of how the post-McGirt landscape is being reshaped case by case, often in ways that limit the reach of tribal sovereignty in practice.

The next post in Law on Native Land will turn to a 2025 decision from the Tenth Circuit in the Hopson case, which held that federal courts lack jurisdiction over certain Indian-on-Indian misdemeanors, leaving those cases to tribal courts.