Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota; October 2, 2013; Minnesota; State Supreme Court
Rusttee Allan Torres filed a second postconviction petition seeking a new trial for his conviction of first-degree murder during a burglary, linked to the death of J.S. The postconviction court denied the petition after an evidentiary hearing, a decision that was affirmed on appeal. The case arose from events on May 8, 1999, when Torres, along with Dylan Frohn, Chris St. Martin, and Tracy Sailor, engaged in a search for T.S. after Frohn claimed he had been defrauded by T.S. during a drug transaction. The group consumed drugs and alcohol while driving around, ultimately arriving at J.S.’s apartment in pursuit of T.S.
Upon arrival, an altercation ensued, leading to Torres holding J.S. at gunpoint while Frohn and Sailor searched the apartment. J.S. was subsequently killed, with his body discovered by friends, showing signs of multiple stab wounds, including a slashed throat. Torres was indicted on charges including first-degree murder and later found guilty of first-degree felony murder and second-degree intentional murder, receiving a life sentence.
In his second petition, Torres argued for a new trial based on new evidence: statements made by Sailor suggesting he, not Torres, committed the murder. These statements were elicited by R.T., Torres’s girlfriend, who posed as a student researching closed criminal cases. Initially, Sailor implicated Torres in J.S.'s death, providing vague responses to R.T.'s inquiries. The court upheld the denial of Torres's petition, indicating the evidence presented was insufficient to warrant a new trial.
R.T. led Sailor to believe they were in a serious romantic relationship, during which Sailor communicated concerns about the monitoring of their correspondence and limited his admissions to those in his plea agreement. They used coded language to discuss Sailor’s involvement in J.S.’s murder, with Sailor directly stating he, not Torres, was the killer. He expressed a desire for revenge against Torres for past grievances. Following Sailor's statements, Torres filed a postconviction relief petition, arguing that Sailor's communications constituted newly discovered evidence and a recantation of his trial testimony, despite the petition being filed after the statute of limitations expired. The postconviction court held an evidentiary hearing where R.T. testified about her tactics to elicit a confession from Sailor, who claimed his statements were exaggerated to impress her and insisted he was not testifying against Torres out of revenge. Sailor affirmed at the hearing that Torres was the murderer and indicated to police that he had lied to R.T. The court ultimately denied Torres's petition, applying legal standards for newly discovered evidence and false testimony, concluding Torres did not meet either criterion. Torres is now challenging this denial, with the court's decision subject to review for abuse of discretion.
The court reviews legal conclusions from the postconviction court de novo and its factual findings for clear error. A petitioner seeking postconviction relief must prove allegations by a fair preponderance of the evidence as per Minn. Stat. 590.04, subd. 3 (2012). For a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the petitioner must demonstrate that the evidence: 1) was unknown to the defendant or counsel at the trial; 2) could not have been discovered with due diligence before trial; 3) is not cumulative, impeaching, or doubtful; and 4) would likely result in acquittal or a more favorable outcome. The court emphasized that new evidence must be credible, not merely material. The postconviction court found that Torres did not meet the third prong of the Rainer test, determining that Sailor's statements about killing J.S. were doubtful and lacked credibility. Sailor claimed to have lied to R.T. about his involvement to maintain her favor, asserting that Torres was the actual killer. The court also concluded that even if Sailor's statements were credible, they would not likely lead to a different result for Torres due to potential accomplice liability. Torres contested the postconviction court's findings regarding Sailor's credibility, arguing that Sailor's communications with R.T. indicated a motive to accuse Torres. However, the court found sufficient factual basis for the postconviction court's conclusions about Sailor's statements lacking credibility, noting Sailor's denials of his guilt and the implausibility of his allegations against Torres.
Sailor's assertion that Torres killed J.S. renders any incriminating statements made by Sailor to R.T. as merely impeaching. The postconviction court found Torres's evidence to be dubious and lacking credibility, which was not clearly erroneous, and thus the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Torres a new trial. Torres contended that the court erred in determining he did not demonstrate that newly discovered evidence would likely result in acquittal or a more favorable outcome. However, since the court's analysis under the third prong of the Rainer test was upheld, this specific issue need not be addressed further. Torres also argued for a new trial on the grounds of justice due to his sentence being disproportionate to those of his co-defendants; however, he did not raise this issue at the postconviction level nor provided legal support for his claim, leading to its dismissal. Overall, the postconviction court's decision to deny Torres's petition for relief is upheld. The details of J.S.'s death are referenced in State v. Torres, 632 N.W.2d 609 (Minn. 2001), and the timeliness of Torres's claim regarding newly discovered evidence was not contested by the State, leaving that matter unaddressed. The State's argument regarding the first prong of the Rainer test was ultimately deemed unnecessary to evaluate given the affirmation based on the third prong.
