Former sheriff’s deputy asks judge to reconsider ruling against dismissing case

LACONIA — A former Belknap Sheriff’s Deputy charged with sexually assaulting an inmate is asking a judge to take a fresh look at a decision that he should stand trial, arguing the law he is charged with violating does not apply to deputy sheriffs.

Ernest Blanchette has asked Superior Court Judge James D. O’Neill III to reconsider his ruling handed down earlier this month denying Blanchette’s motion to dismiss the case, and is further asking the judge to allow the matter to be reviewed by the state Supreme Court prior to trial.

 O’Neill ruled on April 5 that the case against Blanchette should go forward, rejecting the argument that it should be dismissed because the law he is charged with violating is unconstitutionally vague, and because he was being denied his right to a speedy trial.

Blanchette, 41, is charged with raping a female inmate who was being held at the Belknap County House of Correction as he was transporting the woman back to the facility from a dental appointment in 2014. He is charged with two counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault, and one charge of felonious sexual assault.

The law which states that inmates, are incapable of giving legal consent to sex because of their confinement status only applies to corrections and parole and probation officers, Blanchette argued.

But O’Neill disagreed, saying that Blanchette falls under the meaning of the statute because he had direct supervisory control over the inmate at the time of the alleged assaults, and that he was entrusted with the same kinds of responsibilities that corrections authorities would have whenever the inmate was inside the facility.

In the motion for reconsideration, Blanchette states the judge should re-evaluate his ruling based on the state Supreme Court’s 2017 decision which overturned his conviction on a similar charge in Hillsborough County.

“Although the (Superior) Court has not ruled that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, it is nonetheless ambiguous, and the court should reconsider its decision to deny the motion to dismiss after reviewing the legislative history (which clearly shows the purpose of the statute) was to curb sexual assaults by correctional officers within the walls of jails and prisons who have control over the day-to-day lives of inmates,” Blanchette’s motion argues.

Blanchette also disagrees with O’Neill’s finding that he had direct supervisory control over inmates.

“Sheriffs do not have direct supervisory or disciplinary authority over (inmates),” Blanchette’s motion states. “Sheriffs simply have power of arrest over the inmate.”

Blanchette is also asking O’Neill to permit the state Supreme Court review the issue so the question of whether his assignment to transport prisoners effectively made him an employee of the Belknap County Corrections facility can be clarified prior to trial.