On Facts of This Case, Failure to Record Interrogation That Occurred in Another State By Non-Minnesota Officers Does Not Require Its Exclusion

State v. Castillo-Alvarez,, Minn.S.Ct., 9/11/2013.  This comes up from the court of appeals.  Read here.  Mr. Castillo-Alvarez ordered some guys to kidnap and murder a lower level drug dealer over an unpaid invoice for merchandise.  The guys grabbed the drug dealer in Iowa but actually killed him in Minnesota.  Mr. Castillo-Alvarez fled to Mexico but eventually that country extradited him back to Iowa to face charges there.  Once back in the country an FBI agent and an Iowa cop interrogated Mr. Castillo-Alvarez; the officers did not record the interrogation.  The Iowa convictions got tossed for violating Mr. Castillo-Alvarez’s speedy trial rights.  The show then came over into Minnesota.

This Opinion by Chief Justice Gildea is like old home week.  No less than three cases of mine – Sanders, Obeta II (yes, Obeta), and Waddell - get mentioned. 

Mr. Castillo-Alvarez argued, as he did in the court of appeals, that Minn.Stat. 609.045 and the double jeopardy clause of the Minnesota Constitution prevented his prosecution in Minnesota for the same crimes that had been prosecuted in Iowa.  The Supreme Court said that “conviction” under the statute meant a final one, and not one that had been tossed.  Mr. Castillo-Alvarez agreed that the federal double jeopardy clause did not bar prosecution in Minnesota; instead, he wanted the court to expand double jeopardy protection under the state’s provision.  The court was unwilling to do that.

The remaining issue and the one most likely to crop up in day to day life, is whether the failure to have recorded Mr. Castillo-Alvarez’s interrogation over in Iowa required its exclusion in Minnesota.  Now, in my law school days, this was known as a “choice of law” question.  The Supreme Court had ducked this question a few years back in State v. Sanders, 775 N.W.2d 883 (Minn. 2009).  The Court now gives a fact specific answer, under an analysis it calls “most significant relationship.”  It goes something like this:

Under this approach, the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the evidence controls, even if it conflicts with the law of the forum, unless applying the law of the state with the most significant relationship would be contrary to a strong public policy in the forum.

A bit squishy.

Under this “test” Iowa had the “most significant relationship.”  At the time of the interrogation, there were no Minnesota charges pending.  No Minnesota officer either initiated or participated in the interrogation.  Only officers from Iowa – one fed, one state – took part.  Since apparently Minnesota doesn’t care whether Iowa records interrogations, there is no strong Minnesota policy that requires application of the Scales rule.

This result is not a blanket invitation for the cops to arrest a suspect on Payne Avenue and then drive like hell to Hudson, Wisconsin for the interrogation.  Similarly, if the crime occurs on Payne Avenue but the Hudson cops arrest the suspect over there, they can’t call up the SPPD cops and offer to interrogate the prisoner at their place so as to avoid recording it.  So, pay attention to the facts and don’t assume that the non-recorded Texas interrogation is admissible under this opinion.

Justices Page and Stras concurred in the result, but would disagreed with the majority’s conclusion on the interrogation issue.  Justice Lillehaug did not participate.