Opinion ID: 1869128
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Delay in Seeking Indictment

Text: In the second claim in his petition, Hurd argues that the district court erred when it denied his 1993 pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment based on the 12-year delay between the crime and the indictment. On July 20, 1981, several days after Linnerooth's death, the State arrested Hurd and filed a complaint charging him with second-degree murder. The State dismissed the complaint and released Hurd on August 20, 1981. Hurd was not indicted on the 1981 charge, nor does the record support that Hurd expressed a desire in 1981 to proceed to trial for the resolution of the charge. [15] On February 23, 1993, Hurd was again arrested for the Linnerooth murder. A grand jury indicted Hurd for the crime on March 8, 1993. Hurd filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on September 2, 1993, based on the State's delay in bringing charges against him, which the trial court denied on September 21. On appeal and in his second petition for postconviction relief, Hurd contends that the 12 years between the dismissal of the 1981 complaint and the 1993 indictment constitute an impermissible delay that violates his constitutional rights to due process and to a speedy trial. In support of his claim that the delay in prosecution violated his right to due process, Hurd relies on United States v. Sturdy, 207 F.3d 448 (8th Cir.2000). The court recognized in Sturdy that a defendant's right to due process may be violated by the government's delay in prosecution if the defendant suffered actual prejudice from the delay, and the government intentionally delayed the prosecution to secure a tactical advantage. Id. at 451-52. Even if, as Hurd argues, he adequately demonstrated that the delay caused him actual prejudice, his due process claim still lacks merit. There is no evidence in the record that the State delayed Hurd's prosecution for a tactical reason. See Leake v. State, 737 N.W.2d 531, 535 (Minn.2007) (Allegations in a postconviction petition must be `more than argumentative assertions without factual support.' (quoting Hodgson v. State, 540 N.W.2d 515, 517 (Minn.1995))). Rather, the record establishes that the State proceeded with the case after Billie Ann came forward in 1993 with evidence that Hurd confessed to the crime. Hurd's due process claim therefore fails. With regard to his right to a speedy trial, Hurd cites State v. Artz, 154 Minn. 290, 294, 191 N.W. 605, 606 (1923), and he seemingly argues that because he told his public defender he wanted to go to trial when he was first arrested in 1981, his right to a speedy trial has been violated. In Artz, we said that [t]he period in which a speedy trial may be had begins to elapse from the time the accused evinces a readiness to go to trial. Id. But Artz presents a case much different from this one. In Artz, a grand jury indicted the defendant for the murder of two victims. The first murder charge went to trial and the defendant was acquitted. Id. at 291, 191 N.W. at 605. When the verdict on the first charge was returned, the defendant demanded trial on the other charge, and the trial was set to begin eight days later. Id. On the appointed date for the second trial to begin, the defendant was personally present with his attorney and witnesses ready for trial, and so announced to the court. Id. But the State stated to the court that [it] had no evidence to submit, except that introduced by the prosecution in the first trial, and asked that the indictment be dismissed. Id. at 292, 191 N.W. at 605. The district court granted the States request to dismiss the second indictment. Id. The State did not attempt to prosecute the defendant on the second indicted charge until 10 years had passed. Id. We held that the time which has elapsed since the accused demanded a trial upon the charge with which he now stands indicted, is so unreasonable as to constitute a bar to further prosecution thereon. Id. at 294, 191 N.W. at 606. This case does not involve a similar unreasonable delay, and Artz does not support a conclusion that Hurds right to a speedy trial was violated. Hurd was indicted only once, in 1993, approximately nine months before the trial began. [16] And, most importantly for purposes of the rule applied in Artz, the record does not establish that Hurd ever made a demand in 1981 to go to trial before the 1981 charge was dismissed. Similarly with respect to the 1993 charges, the record does not demonstrate that Hurd made any demand for a speedy trial. Hurds claim that his right to a speedy trial was violated therefore fails on the merits. Because the alleged delay in pursuing the indictment was not unreasonable or in violation of Hurds due process or speedy trial rights, there is no merit to the second claim in Hurds second postconviction petition.