State of Minnesota v. David Ernest Osorio
2015 Minn. App. LEXIS 91
Minn. Ct. App.2015Background
- In May 2013 Minnesota charged David Osorio with two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct; a summons and complaint were mailed to his Perris, California address and not returned as undeliverable.
- Osorio did not appear at the initial hearing; a warrant issued June 6, 2013, and remained in national databases.
- Osorio lived at the same Perris address from May 2013 until his February 4, 2015 arrest in Riverside County on unrelated charges; Minnesota authorities did not attempt further to apprehend him.
- Osorio was extradited to Minnesota, first appeared March 2, 2015, demanded a speedy trial April 8, 2015, and moved to dismiss on speedy-trial grounds April 3, 2015.
- The district court granted dismissal, finding the state presented no evidence Osorio actually received the mailed summons; the State appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, applying Barker balancing and the presumption that properly mailed mail is received unless rebutted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Osorio) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Osorio’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated by a ~21-month delay between charging and arrest | State: Delay resulted from negligent inaction but defendant was presumed mailed notice and failed to assert his right; balance disfavors dismissal | Osorio: State’s failure to execute the warrant after charging caused unreasonable delay and his post-arrest speedy-trial demand should not be held against him | Held: No violation; delay triggered inquiry but Barker factors (reason for delay, assertion, prejudice) overall weigh against relief |
| Whether receipt of summons must be proven or may be presumed | State: Proof of mailing creates a presumption of receipt under Nafstad/Hagner | Osorio: District court erred to apply civil presumption to criminal case or to treat mailed summons as effective notice without proof of actual receipt | Held: Presumption that properly addressed, postage-paid mail is received applies in criminal cases; defendant failed to rebut it |
| Weight of government’s failure to arrest after charging | State: Failure was negligent, not deliberate bad faith; weighs against State but not heavily | Osorio: State’s inaction should tip balance to dismiss for speedy-trial violation | Held: Government negligence weighs against State but not heavily absent bad faith |
| Prejudice from lost evidence (audio recordings) | State: Record does not show recordings lost after charging, so no postaccusation prejudice proven | Osorio: Lost partially exculpatory recordings prejudiced defense | Held: Record does not show loss occurred after charging; no established actual prejudice and any presumption of prejudice is mitigated by defendant’s acquiescence |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (establishes four-factor speedy-trial balancing test)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (explains presumptive prejudice from excessive post-accusation delay and role of government negligence/bad faith)
- Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427 (mailing creates presumption of receipt even when consequences are penal)
- Nafstad v. Merchant, 303 Minn. 569 (Minn. recognition of the presumption that properly mailed items are received)
- Windish v. United States, 590 N.W.2d 311 (discusses application of Barker factors in Minnesota)
- United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (Sixth Amendment attaches on arrest or formal charging)
- United States v. Erenas-Luna, 560 F.3d 772 (8th Cir.) (government negligence in failing to apprehend weighs against State)
- State v. Sistrunk, 429 N.W.2d 280 (Minn. App.) (government’s failure to follow up on indictment weighs against State)