Conviction in One State That is Overturned and Dismissed on Speedy Trial Error Does Not Under State Law and Constitution Bar Prosecution and Conviction in Minnesota For Same Crimes.

State v. Castillo-Alvarez, Minn.Ct.App., 9/17/2012.  This was a particularly brutal drug murder/kidnapping, the facts of which are not all that important to the legal issues raised on appeal.  Mr. Castillo-Alvarez ordered a bunch of guys to kidnap and murder G.S.E.  These guys grabbed G.S.E. in Iowa, took him across the border into Minnesota and shot G.S.E. in the head.

Iowa got its first bite at prosecuting Mr. Castillo-Alvarez for the kidnapping and murder.  A jury over there convicted him but the Iowa appellate court threw it out for violation of his speedy trial rights.  Minnesota then hauled him into their courts and a jury convicted Mr. Castillo-Alvarez of the same crimes.

Mr. Castillo-Alvarez first argued that Minn.Stat. 609.045 prevented Minnesota from prosecuting him for crimes that he had already been convicted of across the border.  Here’s what the statute says:

If an act or omission in this state constitutes a crime under both the laws of this state and the laws of another jurisdiction, a conviction or acquittal of the crime in the other jurisdiction shall not bar prosecution for the crime in this state unless the elements of both law and fact are identical.

The court of appeals concludes that when the Iowa appellate court reversed the trial court convictions on speedy trial grounds with directions to dismiss the charges that court “erased the Iowa conviction because of the state’s speedy-trial error, and no conviction existed at the time Minnesota filed its complaint against Castillo-Alvarez.”  Had the Iowa courts reversed the convictions on evidence sufficiency grounds, the court of appeals suggests that it would have applied the statute and undertook the remaining analysis that the statute required – see that “unless the elements” end clause.

Mr. Castillo-Alvarez then made the same argument but under the Minnesota Constitution.  The court of appeals declines to construe the state constitution differently from the federal double jeopardy provision under which there is no federal violation for one state to convict an offender on the same charges that another state has also convicted that offender.  Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985). 

After the kidnapping and murder Mr. Castillo-Alvarez left for Mexico; it took a while to get him back but eventually he showed up in Houston where FBI agents interviewed him.  In keeping with FBI practice, the agents did not record that interview.  Cf., State v. Scales, 518 N.W.2d 587 (Minn. 1994).  Mr. Castillo-Alvarez argued that this statement should have been suppressed because it was not recorded.  Relying on its opinion in State v. Sanders, 743 N.W.2d 616 (Minn.Ct.App., 2008), the court continues to say that Scales does not operate beyond the state lines.  Now, it’s true that the supreme court reviewed that court of appeals opinion, but it declined to decide whether Scales applied outside the borders of Minnesota.  State v. Sanders, 775 N.W.2d 883 (Minn. 2009). You can read about that here.  That left the court of appeals decision on this question still intact.

Mr. Castillo-Alvarez made challenges to the introduction of co-conspirator statements and to the consecutive sentencing, but to no avail. 

1/3/13:  Update:  The Supreme Court has accepted review of this case.