A New Mexico man sentenced to 30 years in prison for sexually abusing an American Indian girl had his conviction vacated on Monday by a Tenth Circuit panel that determined prosecutors failed to prove the man was not himself Native American, a key element under the statute invoked in his case.

"Our current case law originates from United States v. Prentiss ... where our circuit concluded that the Indian and non-Indian statuses of a victim and defendant are essential elements of a crime under § 1152 [the General Crimes Act] that must be alleged in an indictment," wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Timothy Michael Tymkovich in the unanimous published opinion vacating Joel Ruiz's sentence.

Just because Ruiz was born in Mexico did not automatically mean he did not have Native American ancestry, the panel said, explaining that investigators' efforts of only determining he was not in the same tribe as his alleged victims "fails to provide sufficient evidence to prove Ruiz's non-Indian status."

Although the panel lamented the difficulty placed on prosecutors, the court said its hands were tied. "At Ruiz's trial, the government did not introduce any DNA or genealogical evidence as to his non-Indian blood," Judge Tymkovich wrote.

While the court called it "nonsensical to have convictions vacated and overturned because, despite putting forth convincing evidence of a defendant's offense conduct, the government did not have ample evidence in its arsenal 'to prove a negative,'" the court could not do anything else in this case.

"Our rule, perversely, turns the table on victims when the defendant most likely holds the evidence that proves his status," Judge Tymkovich wrote.

The court had to find in favor of Ruiz, who had been tried and found guilty of engaging in a sexual act with a minor under the age of 12.

According to the panel, Ruiz was accused of luring cousins who were between the ages of 4 and 7 into his trailer with candy and then touching the girls' genitals. He lived on the Jicarilla Apache Reservation in New Mexico, according to court testimony.

In addition to proof of the alleged crimes, the General Crimes Act — which allows the federal government to prosecute crimes committed on reservations by non-American Indians against American Indians — requires evidence that the perpetrator is not an American Indian.

"As unrealistic as our current standard for proving a defendant's non-Indian status may seem, we must abide by our existing precedent unless and until we revisit our decision in Prentiss," wrote Judge Tymkovich. "We join our colleague in encouraging this court to reexamine and correct our current case law on the issue," he added, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comments on Monday.

Ruiz is represented by Violet N. D. Edelman of the Office of the Public Defender in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

The government is represented by Caitlin L. Dillon and Ryan Ellison of the Office of United States Attorney, District of New Mexico.

The case is United States v. Ruiz, case number 24-2128, in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

--Editing by Philip Shea.