specifically expressed its intention that the federal government retain jurisdiction over those crimes enumerated in the Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153. Notwithstanding the limitations on state criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed within Indian country, a state possesses criminal jurisdiction over Indians who violate state laws outside of reservation boundaries. See Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U.S. 60, 75, 82 S.Ct. 562, 571, 7 L.Ed.2d 573, 583 (1962) (“It has never been doubted that States may punish crimes committed by Indians, even reservation Indians, outside of Indian country.”); see also DeCoteau v. District County Court, 420 U.S. 425, 427 n. 2, 95 S.Ct. 1082, 1084 n. 2, 43 L.Ed.2d 300, 304 n. 2 (1975). Thus, outside of Indian country, state crimin 1896) (<HOLDING>). It is also noteworthy that the state court,
holding that state has no jurisdiction over civil suit by nonindian against indian where cause of action arises on indian reservation holding state law applicable to ute indian murder of another ute occurring offreservation holding that state officers may execute on tribal lands process related to offreservation violations of state law holding state law applicable to an indian accused of statutory rape of an indian minor occurring offreservation holding that oklahoma police officer was without jurisdiction to arrest indian inside indian reservation when the state has neither received by express grant nor acted pursuant to congressional authorization to assume criminal jurisdiction over indian country