Court upholds case's dismissal

SANDPOINT — The Idaho Court of Appeals is affirming the dismissal of a lewd conduct case against a former Sandpoint man.

Gary Dean Blankenship Jr. was accused of sexually abusing a girl over an extended period of time starting when she was 7 years old. The alleged abuse culminated with Blankenship raping her in 1997.

The charges, however, were amended to statutory rape after the state realized that prosecution for lewd conduct was barred by the statute of limitations.

Blankenship was ordered to stand trial for statutory rape following a preliminary hearing in magistrate court.

Blankenship’s defense counsel, Sandpoint attorney Bryce Powell, moved to dismiss the complaint, contending prosecution for statutory rape was also barred by the statute of limitations. Bonner County Prosecutor Louis Marshall objected to the dismissal and sought to amend the charge to forcible rape, an offense which was not subject to the statute of limitations.

But 1st District Judge Steve Verby denied the state’s motion to amend and granted the defense motion to dismiss. Verby ruled that granting the state’s motion would prejudice Blankenship’s substantial rights.

Allegations of force were not raised until after the preliminary hearing, which denied the defense the right to cross-examine the state’s witness on those claims.

Blankenship, 51, relocated to Washington state and filed a $10 million claim against the county for malicious prosecution following the dismissal.

Deputy Attorney General Kenneth Jorgensen argued on appeal that Verby applied an incorrect legal standard and therefore abused its discretion in dismissing the charges, but Chief Judge Sergio Gutierrez upheld the lower court ruling and held that an amended charge would indeed prejudice Blankenship.

“We cannot say the district court abused its discretion in coming to this conclusion,” Gutierrez said in a five-page opinion issued on Monday.

Judges Karen Lansing and David Gratton concurred.

The charges against Blankenship were dismissed without prejudice, which enabled the state to begin prosecution anew on the forcible rape charge.

But Marshall and the attorney general’s office opted to appeal instead due to the possibility that a magistrate court judge could find that Verby’s ruling was binding as it related to the sufficiency of the evidence.

“Essentially, we feel we are in somewhat of a legal Catch 22. Unfortunately, the legal system is set up where the function of an appeals court is to reach a decision without answering all of the questions the parties want answered,” Marshall said on Tuesday.

Marshall added that his office and that of the attorney general will re-evaluate the case and decide what the best course of action is.