State of Minnesota, vs.Daniel Irlas, 888 N.W.2d 709

Background

On Dec. 26, 2014, Daniel Irlas, Ernesto Salinas, and W.B. attacked P.P.; P.P. was stabbed and beaten. Salinas later pleaded guilty and, in his plea colloquy, admitted stabbing P.P. and implicated Irlas.
At the joint trial of Irlas and W.B., Salinas took the stand but repeatedly refused to answer substantive questions, invoking the Fifth Amendment; he answered only preliminary questions.
The district court ruled Salinas was "available" for cross-examination because he appeared on the stand and admitted some facts, then admitted Salinas’s guilty-plea transcript into evidence and the State read it to the jury.
The jury convicted Irlas of first-degree burglary, aiding and abetting second-degree assault, and fifth-degree assault; Irlas was sentenced to 120 months.
Irlas appealed, arguing the admission of Salinas’s plea transcript violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights because Salinas was unavailable and could not be cross-examined; the court reviewed whether the error was harmless.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Appellant's Argument	Held
Whether a witness who invokes the Fifth Amendment at trial is "unavailable" for Confrontation Clause purposes	Salinas’s invocation was invalid or amounted to uncooperative testimony; he was effectively available and Irlas could have sought an order to compel testimony	Any on-the-record invocation of the Fifth makes the witness unavailable and precludes admission of prior testimonial statements absent prior cross-examination	A state witness who invokes the Fifth at trial is unavailable, whether the invocation is valid or not; admission of prior testimonial statements is barred without opportunity for cross-examination
Whether Salinas was "subject to cross-examination" despite taking the stand and answering preliminary questions	Salinas’s limited answers made him effectively available for cross-examination; defendant could have compelled testimony	Salinas refused to answer substantive questions and thus was not subject to cross-examination under Crawford	Salinas was not subject to cross-examination because he refused to answer substantive questions after invoking the Fifth
Whether admission of the plea transcript violated the Confrontation Clause	Admission was permissible as the witness was on the stand and the transcript fit hearsay exceptions; any error was harmless	Admission violated the Confrontation Clause because transcript was testimonial and Salinas was unavailable and not cross-examined	Admission violated the Confrontation Clause because Salinas was unavailable and had not been cross-examined
Whether the Confrontation Clause error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	The State argued other evidence supported the verdict	Irlas argued the transcript was highly persuasive and central to the State’s theory; without it the case was weak	Error was not harmless; transcript was read verbatim, heavily relied on in closing, and materially strengthened the State’s case

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial statements inadmissible unless witness unavailable and previously subject to cross-examination)
United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554 (witness is subject to cross-examination when placed on stand and responds willingly)
Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415 (Confrontation rights implicated when witness invokes Fifth and prosecutor reads prior confession)
State v. Caulfield, 722 N.W.2d 304 (Minn. 2006) (appellate review of Confrontation Clause questions is de novo)
State v. Swaney, 787 N.W.2d 541 (testimonial statements by unavailable witnesses inadmissible without prior cross-examination)
State v. Morales, 788 N.W.2d 737 (recognizing prejudice when witnesses invoke the Fifth on the stand)
State v. Plantin, 682 N.W.2d 653 (witness claiming memory loss but testifying does not necessarily create Confrontation problem)
State v. Ford, 539 N.W.2d 214 (invocation of Fifth can establish unavailability)
State v. Durante, 406 N.W.2d 80 (witnesses who invoke Fifth are unavailable for confrontation purposes)
State v. Iverson, 396 N.W.2d 599 (refusal to testify can render witness unavailable)
State v. Courtney, 696 N.W.2d 73 (standard for harmlessness review of Confrontation Clause errors)

Decision: Reversed and remanded for a new trial because admission of Salinas’s guilty-plea transcript violated Irlas’s Confrontation Clause rights and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.