2013-M-250        State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Juan Humberto Castillo-Alvarez, Appellant.

MAJORITY:  Appellant Juan Humberto Castillo-Alvarez challenges his convictions for second-degree murder and kidnapping, in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 609.19, subds. 1(1), 2(1), 609.25 (2012).  Castillo-Alvarez contends that Minn. Stat. § 609.045 (2012) and the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Minnesota Constitution bar the prosecution in this case.  He also asserts that the district court erred in admitting evidence of his unrecorded statement to law enforcement.  Because neither section 609.045 nor the Minnesota Constitution bar the prosecution and because the district court properly admitted Castillo

Alvarez’s unrecorded statement, we affirm.

Alvarez was a drug king-pin in northern Iowa.  He ordered a gang of men to kidnap a street dealer, take him across the border into Minnesota, to beat him, shoot him to death, and burn the body.

HELD:  1. Minnesota Statutes § 609.045 (2012) did not bar the Minnesota prosecution because appellant’s Iowa conviction, which was set aside on appeal, was not a final conviction under the statute. 

2. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Minnesota Constitution allows successive state prosecutions when a defendant’s single act transgresses the laws of both states.  

3. A choice-of-law issue concerning the admissibility of an unrecorded out-ofstate interrogation is resolved by applying the most significant relationship approach.  The state with the most significant relationship to an unrecorded interrogation is the state in which prosecution is contemplated at the time of the interrogation.  Even if the unrecorded interrogation would not be admissible under State v. Scales, 518 N.W.2d 587 (Minn. 1994), it is admissible in a Minnesota court if it is admissible under the laws of the state with the most significant relationship, so long as there is no strong Minnesota public policy to exclude the evidence.  

 Affirmed.

CONCUR:  Justice Stras opined:  “I agree with the court that neither Minn. Stat. § 609.045 (2012) nor the Minnesota Constitution bar the prosecution of Castillo-Alvarez in the State of Minnesota.  I write separately to explain why the court is incorrect in concluding that our decision in State v. Scales, 518 N.W.2d 587 (Minn. 1994), does not apply to the admission of CastilloAlvarez’s unrecorded statement.  However, because I conclude that the Scales violation here was not substantial, I concur in the result only.

Gildea (Page, Anderson, Dietzen, and Wright)

Concur:  Stras

Took no part:  Lillehaug

[MURDER]

A11-1379, A12-81