23 NICS App. 30, SWINOMISH v. SIMEONOFF (November 2025)

IN THE SWINOMISH TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

SWINOMISH INDIAN RESERVATION

LACONNER, WASHINGTON

Swinomish Tribal Community, Appellant,

v.

Keith P. Simeonoff, Appellee.

NO.    CRCA-2025-0026 (November 3, 2025)

Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a bail jumping charge against appellee, ruling the Tribe lacked jurisdiction. It held that the word “court” in the tribal code refers exclusively to the Swinomish Tribal Court, not to outside jurisdictions such as municipal courts. The court emphasized that the tribal code and its legislative intent limit criminal jurisdiction to offenses arising on the reservation. Interpreting “court” more broadly would lead to unreasonable results and contradict the rule of lenity. Court of Appeals concluded that extradition, not prosecution, is the proper process for addressing off-reservation warrants.

SYLLABUS*

Before: Appearances:

Eric Nielsen, Chief Judge; Daniel A. Raas, Judge; David H. House, Judge. Melissa V. Simonsen, for Appellant; Matthew C. Deming, for Appellee.

OPINION

Per curiam:

FACTS AND PROCEDURES

Keith Simeonoff (‘Appellee’), a member of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, a federally recognized Tribe of American Indians, was charged in Burlington, Washington, Municipal Court with Fourth Degree Assault (Domestic Violence). In that foreign court prosecution, he failed to appear for a scheduled hearing and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest on October 2, 2024. That warrant was sent to neighboring jurisdictions, including the

23 NICS App. 30, SWINOMISH v. SIMEONOFF (November 2025) p. 31

Swinomish Indian Tribal Community (‘Appellant’ or ‘SITC’). Burlington is located a few miles east of the Swinomish Reservation.

On January 22, 2025, Appellee encountered the Swinomish Police on the Swinomish Reservation. He was arrested pursuant to the October 2, 2024, warrant and charged with violation of Swinomish Tribal Code (STC) §4-09.010 ‘Bail Jumping.’

The Tribal Court, sua sponte, sought briefing on the question of whether it had jurisdiction over the offense. After receiving argument from both Appellee and Appellant, the Tribal Court determined it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the alleged offense and dismissed the charge. SITC appealed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The subject matter jurisdiction of the Tribal Court is a question of law and is therefore reviewed de novo, without regard to the decision of the Tribal Court. Charles v. Swinomish Tribal Community, 22 NICS App. 1, 2 (Swinomish Tribal Ct. App. 2022).

DISCUSSION

A court’s primary duty in interpreting any provision of the Tribal Code is to discern and implement the intent of the Tribe’s legislative body. Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Cultee, 8 NICS App. 68, 69 (Skokomish Tribal Ct. App. 2008); Ferris v. Hoopa Valley Tribe, 8 NICS App. 1, 5-6 (Hoopa Valley Tribal Ct. App. 2007); United Blood Servs. v. Quintana, 827 P.2d 509, 522 (Colo.1992); Gallegos v. Phipps, 779 P.2d 856, 861 (Colo.1989). The language of the code provision itself provides the most reliable evidence of the intent of the Tribal Council. Ferris 8 NICS App. at 6 (citing United States v. Turreted, 452 U.S. 576, 593, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981)).

Southern Ute v. Henry, 15 NICS App. 35, 40 (Southern Ute Tribal Ct. App. 2017); see Estate of Laddie Taylor, 20 NICS App. 5 (Southern Ute Tribal Ct. App. 2022) (accord).

Appellee was charged under STC §4-09.010. That provision reads: “Any person who has been released by court order, including release on personal recognizance, or allowed to post bail but is required to make subsequent personal appearances in court, and who willfully fails to make subsequent court appearances as required, commits the Class B offense of bail jumping.”

Appellant argues that the word “court” in describing the offense of bail jumping should be read as “any court,” which in this case would include the Burlington Municipal Court. Appellee maintains that in the context of STC §4-09.010 and other code provisions the plain meaning of the term “court” is the “Swinomish Tribal Court.” This apparent ambiguity is the issue in this case and requires us to determine the Tribe’s legislative body’s intent in enacting STC §4-09.010.

23 NICS App. 30, SWINOMISH v. SIMEONOFF (November 2025) p. 32

Title 4 (Swinomish Criminal Code) defines “Tribal Court” as the “Swinomish Tribal Court.” STC 4-01.040(24). It does not specifically define “court.” In Title 3 (Tribal Court) Chapter 1 (Establishment and Authority) and Chapter 3 (Rules of Criminal Procedure), each state that the term “Tribal Court” or “Court” means the Swinomish Tribal Court. STC 3-01.020(G) and 3-03.040(H). This variation raises the question whether the Tribe’s legislative body intended different meanings of “court” to apply, on the one hand, for Title 3 where the term is defined to mean the Swinomish Tribal Court, and, on the other hand, for Title 4 where “court” is not specifically defined. We find it did not and that the term “court” in STC 4-09.010 means the Swinomish Tribal Court.

Absent a clear legislative intent to the contrary the word “court” retains the same meaning in the various STC chapters and titles pertaining to the Swinomish Tribal Court and the Tribe’s criminal law. Specifically, given that Title 3’s definitions of “Tribal Court” and “Court” means the Swinomish Tribal Court for purposes of the establishing the Swinomish Tribal Court and its rules of criminal procedure, it follows it was intended that the same meaning applies to the Tribe’s criminal code under Title 4.

In Title 4, offenses interchangeably apply the words “court” and “Tribal Court” in reference to the Swinomish Tribal Court. For example, the offense of “Criminal Contempt of Court” makes it a crime to disobey an order “given by the Tribal Court,” to “appear “in court while under the influence of alcohol,” and to use “vulgar language in the presence of the court.” See STC 4-09.030 (emphasis added). Though the references are to the “Tribal Court” in one instance and the “court” in the other, these offenses are clearly directed to contempt against the Swinomish Tribal Court. Cf. STC 4-09.030(A) and (B).

Another example is STC 4-09.120. It is an offense under that provision to fail to appear in tribal court to answer a fish and game citation. However, the caption for the offense reads “Failure to Appear in Court for Fish and Game Citation” (emphasis added). If the Tribe’s legislative body intended “Court” for the purposes of Chapter 4-09 to include foreign courts, the caption for this offense would logically read “Failure to Appear in Tribal Court for Fish and Game Citation” because an element of the offense is failure to appear in tribal court. It does not because it was intended that “Court” and “tribal court” mean the Swinomish Tribal Court.

The Tribe’s legislative body does know how to distinguish between types and locations of courts. The definition of “Public official” in the Criminal Code references “any tribal or other governmental organization or agency, including a tribal or other court....” STC 4-01.040(A)(15) (emphasis added). Waiver language for extradition hearings refers to being “transported to another court for criminal proceedings” and “transported to an off-Reservation court for further criminal proceedings.” STC 3-03.520(A)(1) and (3) (emphasis added). In contrast bail jumping simply refers to “court.” If the offense of bail jumping was intended to apply to court orders from other jurisdictions, the legislative body would have used similar language to make that intent clear, such as “released by a tribal or another court’s order” or “fails to make subsequent on-Reservation or off-Reservation court appearances.” That it did not also shows it intended “court” for the crime of bail jumping to mean the Swinomish Tribal Court.

Moreover, bail jumping is found within Chapter 4-09 of the Swinomish Tribal Code, which is entitled “Offenses Involving Tribal Government.” Appellee’s conduct in failing to

23 NICS App. 30, SWINOMISH v. SIMEONOFF (November 2025) p. 33

appear before the Burlington Municipal Court in no way involves Tribal Government. This is another clear indication that the Tribe’s legislative body did not intend STC §4-09.010 to apply to a person’s failure to appear in another jurisdiction’s court.

Construing the “court” reference in bail jumping as meaning the Swinomish Tribal Court also comports with STC 3-01.050 (A)(2)(b) which limits the Swinomish Tribal Court’s subject matter jurisdiction to crimes “that arise within the exterior boundaries of the Reservation.” ² Failure to appear in another jurisdiction’s court is not a crime arising “within the exterior boundaries of the Reservation.” STC 3-01.050 (A)(2)(b).

In determining the intent of a Tribe’s legislative body, we, like other courts, will harmonize codes to maintain the integrity of each. Flint v. Snoqualmie, 23 NICS App. 8, 14 (Snoqualmie Tribal Ct. App. 2025). Unless the Tribal Council has clearly expressed its intent to the contrary, it is our duty to regard each code provision as effective. Ferris 8 NICS App. at 7; Edmond L. v. Misti W., 9 NICS App. 118, 121 (Puyallup Tribal Ct. App. 2011).

We hold the Tribe’s legislative body intended that the term “court” in STC §4-09.010 to mean the “Swinomish Tribal Court.” Our holding harmonizes definitions in STC 4-01.040(24) with STC 3-01.020(G) and STC 3-03.040(H), gives credence to the expressed intent in the title to Chapter 4-09 that crimes identified in that chapter are “Offenses Involving Tribal Government,” and maintains the limitation of the Tribal Court’s subject matter jurisdiction found in STC 3-01.050 (A)(2)(b) to crimes occurring on the Reservation.     

Appellant’s argument that “court” in STC §4-09.010, and only that provision, means any court in any jurisdiction borders on an absurd result. See In the Guardianship of N.S., 10 NICS App. 90, 92 (Muckleshoot Tribal Ct. App. 2012) (“[I]t is a venerable principle that statutory language should not be applied literally if doing so would produce an absurd result.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). It would potentially subject every member of a federally recognized Tribe who is under a warrant for failing to appear in any court in the United States, including any tribal court, subject to criminal prosecution as soon as that person set foot on the Swinomish Reservation.

Lastly, under the rule of lenity ambiguous criminal statutory provisions are interpreted in favor of the defendant. Suquamish Tribe v. Lah-Huh-Bate-Soot, 4 NICS App. 32, 56 (Suquamish Tribal Ct. App. 1995); State v. Evans, 177 Wn.2d 186, 193, 298 P.3d 724 (2013). “We generally construe criminal statutes against the Tribe, as the rule of lenity requires us to strictly construe ambiguous criminal statutes.” Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians v. Long, 17 Am. Tribal Law 358, 363 (E. Cherokee Sup. Ct. 2023). Even if we were to find the term “court” in STC §4-09 irreconcilably ambiguous, which we do not, given the definition of “court” in other provisions of the code as the “Swinomish Tribal Court” and the title to Chapter 4-09, under the rule of lenity we would likewise interpret it in favor of the Appellee to mean the “Swinomish Tribal Court.”

23 NICS App. 30, SWINOMISH v. SIMEONOFF (November 2025) p. 34

Our holding does not leave the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community vulnerable to fugitives from another jurisdiction who are found within its territorial jurisdiction. It is a successor to aboriginal groups that signed the Treaty of Point Elliot. Article IX of that Treaty concludes: “And the said tribes agree not to shelter or conceal offenders against the laws of the United States, but to deliver them up to the authorities for trial.”

Exercising its inherent sovereignty and in keeping with this Article the Tribe has enacted laws relating to the apprehension, detention and extradition of individuals who are fugitives from another jurisdiction and found within its jurisdiction. STC 3-03.470-530. The procedure in that provision is how the Tribe’s legislative body intended to deal with an individual with an outstanding warrant from another jurisdiction who is found within Swinomish Tribe’s jurisdiction. The legislative body did not intend that person be charged with bail jumping for their failure to appear in another jurisdiction’s court pursuant to that court’s orders.

The Swinomish Tribal Court Order of March 31, 2025, is AFFIRMED.

---

The syllabus is not a part of the Court’s Opinion. The syllabus is a summary of the Opinion prepared by the publishers of this reporter only for the convenience of the reader. Therefore, the syllabus should not be cited in whole or part as legal authority. Only the Opinion, which follows the syllabus, may be cited as legal authority.

“Criminal Matters. The Court’s subject matter jurisdiction shall be limited to criminal matters that arise within the exterior boundaries of the Reservation.” STC 3-01.050 (A)(2)(b). We observe that there is an exception providing for off-Reservation criminal subject matter jurisdiction relating to certain fishing, hunting, and gathering activities, and note that this express exception does not encompass bail jumping. See STC 3-01.050(A)(2)(c).)