Blanchette attorney asks that latest charges be dismissed

LACONIA — The attorney for a former Belknap County Sheriff’s deputy, who was recently re-indicted for alleged sexual assault on a prisoner, is asking that the latest charges be dismissed.

Attorney Brad Davis is requesting a judge to throw out the charges against Ernest Blanchette because the law his client is accused of violating is unconstitutionally vague, and because the prosecution waited too long to bring the new charges, thereby denying Blanchette’s rights to a speedy trial.

Blanchette, 41, was indicted by a Belknap County grand jury in October on two charges of aggravated felonious sexual assault, and one charge of felonious sexual assault. All three indictments state that Blanchette coerced a 30-year-old female inmate into various sex acts on Sept. 18, 2014, in Belmont.

In 2015 he was indicted in Hillsborough County for raping an inmate in an abandoned house in Bedford. A jury found him guilty in April 2016 and he was sentenced to serve 10 to 20 years in prison.

But the state Supreme Court reversed Blanchette’s conviction in May 2017, saying there wasn't enough evidence to prove he was employed by a correctional institution, as was required under state law that existed at the time.

That ruling did not affect the outstanding charges against Blanchette that stemmed from his alleged actions in Belknap County.

But in December 2018 the Belknap County charges of aggravated felonious sexual assault were dismissed. However, Superior Court Judge James D. O’Neill III ruled prosecutors were free to bring new charges against Blanchette in the future.

In the meantime the Legislature amended the language in the state law to include all officials who are maintaining an inmate’s detention.

However, “Mr. Blanchette is accused under the prior law which requires the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Blanchette had direct supervisory disciplinary authority (of the woman he is accused of assaulting) being incarcerated at the Belknap County House of Corrections where Mr. Blanchette was employed,” the motion reads.

The motion goes on to state that Blanchette was not employed by the House of Correction, but rather by the Belknap County Sheriff’s Department, and so the law did not apply to him.

Belknap County Attorney Andrew Livernois said last month that the Supreme Court’s 2017 ruling “did not directly relate” to the latest charges against Blanchette.

He said the high court’s decision found that when sheriff’s deputies are transporting a prisoner to or from court, they are not agents of a corrections facility, but instead are agents of the court.

“But they left open the possibility that when they are transporting a prisoner to someplace else, then they can be considered agents of the Department of Correction,” Livernois said. “This case involves a prisoner being transported somewhere else.”

Livernois’ office has until Jan. 4 to respond to the arguments in the defense’s motion.

In addition to raising the issue of Blanchette’s employment status, the defense is asking the judge to throw out the charges because the prosecution waited more that 2½ years to re-indict Blanchette after the Hillsborough County charges were dismissed. While the Belknap County charges were not dismissed until 15 months after the Hillsborough County charges, Blanchette’s attorney argues that prosecutors were actively considering re-indicting his client when they asked O’Neill whether he was dismissing the initial charges without prejudice — meaning the case could be tried again.

“To allow the (prosecution) to delay in bringing forward a subsequent indictment can effectively nullify a defendant’s right to a speedy trial,” the motion states.