Donnelly v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1913 · Evidence

228 U.S. 243 (1913)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidencehearsaydeclaration against interestthird-party confessionIndian countryIndian reservationfederal criminal jurisdictionmurder

Facts

The indictment charged Donnelly with murdering Chickasaw, an Indian and member of the Klamath Tribe, within the limits of the Extension of the Hoopa Valley Reservation in California. The trial proceeded on the theory that the killing occurred in or near the bed of the Klamath River, below ordinary high-water mark, and the government did not allege or prove that Donnelly was an Indian. Donnelly argued the place of the homicide was outside the reservation, that federal jurisdiction failed because he was not shown to be an Indian, and that a prior mining claim or local school district affected reservation status. He also sought to introduce testimony that a deceased Indian, Joe Dick, had confessed before death that he shot Chickasaw.

Issue

Whether the federal courts had jurisdiction to punish the killing of an Indian by a non-Indian on the Hoopa Valley Reservation extension, including the river bed where the homicide allegedly occurred, and whether a deceased third party's out-of-court confession to the crime was admissible. More specifically, the Court considered whether the extension was lawfully created, whether it was Indian country, and whether the confession fit any hearsay exception.

Rule

A tract of public land lawfully set apart as an Indian reservation is 'Indian country' within Rev. Stat. § 2145, and murder of an Indian there by a person not of Indian blood is punishable in federal court under §§ 2145 and 5339. A third party's out-of-court confession to the crime charged is inadmissible hearsay; the declaration-against-interest exception is limited to pecuniary interests and does not extend to statements merely exposing the declarant to criminal liability, even when the declarant is dead.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a homicide trial in Denver, Malik Rowan is charged with shooting Evan Sato outside a warehouse. Malik offers testimony from Nora Bell that, two days before dying of pneumonia, Owen Price told her, "I shot Evan myself," and Owen is now dead.

Under the governing rule, is Nora's testimony about Owen's statement admissible to prove Malik did not commit the shooting?

Explanation. The rule is that a third party's out-of-court confession offered to exculpate the accused is inadmissible hearsay. The common-law declaration-against-interest exception recognized here is limited to statements against pecuniary interest, not statements merely exposing the declarant to criminal liability, even when the declarant is dead.