The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the conviction of Sharon Rosebear for felony child neglect in connection with the death of her 7-year-old granddaughter on Christmas Day 2022. The child, identified as J.F., died from malnutrition and an infection caused by severe, untreated head lice.
A federal jury found Rosebear guilty under the Major Crimes Act, which extends federal jurisdiction over serious crimes committed on Indian reservations. The conviction was based on violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1151 and 1153(a) and (b), as well as Minnesota state law under Minn. Stat. § 609.378 subd. 1(a)(1).
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota sentenced Rosebear to 15 months in prison and two years of supervised release. On appeal, Rosebear challenged both the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction and argued that her sentence exceeded the state mandatory maximum sentence in violation of the Major Crimes Act and constitutional principles established in *Apprendi* and *Blakely*.
According to court documents, Rosebear and her husband lived with multiple children in a small house in Ponemah, Minnesota, located on the Red Lake Indian Reservation. The home lacked running water, though free public showers were available at the ambulance station a mile away, at the Boys and Girls club, and at the school.
The court noted that Rosebear received food benefits through an Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) debit card and regularly fed the children in her care. However, evidence showed she sometimes traded her EBT benefits at a deep discount for cash, potentially compromising the household's food security.
The case involved complex living arrangements, with Rosebear's son Julius and his five children, including J.F., moving into the home in 2021. The children slept on mattresses in the living room. Court records indicate that Julius struggled with drug addiction, which may have contributed to the challenging circumstances surrounding the children's care.
The Major Crimes Act, originally enacted in 1885, gives federal courts jurisdiction over certain serious crimes committed by Native Americans on tribal lands. The law was designed to address jurisdictional gaps in law enforcement on reservations, where state authorities traditionally lack jurisdiction over crimes involving Native Americans.
Under this federal framework, child neglect cases that occur on tribal lands can be prosecuted in federal court when they meet certain criteria. The government must prove the offense under both federal jurisdictional requirements and the applicable state criminal law, creating a unique legal structure that combines federal oversight with state-defined criminal standards.
Rosebear's appeal centered on two main arguments. First, she contended that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a conviction for child neglect. Second, she argued that her 15-month sentence violated sentencing guidelines established under the Major Crimes Act, specifically claiming it exceeded the mandatory maximum sentence allowed under Minnesota state law.
The constitutional challenges referenced the Supreme Court decisions in *Apprendi v. New Jersey* (2000) and *Blakely v. Washington* (2004), which established important limitations on judicial sentencing authority. These cases require that any fact increasing a defendant's sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than determined by a judge using a lower standard of proof.
The Eighth Circuit's three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Loken, Erickson, and Kobes, with Judge Kobes writing the opinion, rejected both of Rosebear's arguments and affirmed the lower court's decision. The appeals court found that sufficient evidence supported the conviction and that the sentence did not violate federal or constitutional requirements.
The case highlights the ongoing challenges of child welfare on tribal lands, where poverty, limited infrastructure, and jurisdictional complexities can complicate efforts to protect vulnerable children. The lack of running water in the household, combined with limited access to basic hygiene facilities, contributed to conditions that ultimately proved fatal for the young victim.
The tragic circumstances of J.F.'s death from preventable causes underscore the intersection of federal law enforcement, tribal sovereignty, and child protection services. Cases prosecuted under the Major Crimes Act often involve complex social and economic factors that contribute to criminal conduct on reservations.
The court's decision reinforces federal authority to prosecute serious crimes on tribal lands while maintaining the requirement that such prosecutions conform to both federal jurisdictional standards and applicable state criminal law. The case also demonstrates how federal sentencing in Major Crimes Act cases must navigate the relationship between federal and state sentencing guidelines.
This ruling contributes to the body of federal case law governing child neglect prosecutions under the Major Crimes Act and clarifies the standards for challenging both convictions and sentences in such cases. The decision was submitted on June 11, 2025, and filed on Jan. 27, 2026.