A trial date was set Wednesday morning for a man accused of sexually imposing himself on a woman during an alleged assault on March 19, 2013. His trial will begin May 5.
Chad Ernest Lemar, 37, is charged with the Class AA felony of gross sexual imposition and the Class C felonies of aggravated assault - domestic violence and terrorizing. All charges stem from the same alleged incident that occurred March 19, 2013.
According to a deposition from Darren Dyke of the Minot Police Department, police arrived at a home in the Golden Nugget mobile home park on 31st Street Southeast to check out a report of assault. Upon their arrival they encountered Lemar's girlfriend, who was "bleeding profusely" from a large cut on her forehead and also had "severe bruising to her nasal region" and her nose appeared to be severely disfigured.
The woman claimed that Lemar had assaulted her. She also claimed he had ripped off her clothing and sexually penetrated her digitally "multiple times" during the alleged assault. The incident is believed to have occurred after the couple returned home from a night out at the bar.
Lemar's attorney, Kerry Rosenquist, filed a motion on Nov. 14, 2013, to dismiss the GSI charge in the case by arguing that the State of North Dakota held evidence material to the case that had not been turned over for his review and defense. The motion cited the landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case "Brady v. Maryland" to back up the legal foundation for dismissal due to the alleged withholding of evidence.
The outcome of that Supreme Court decision is that exculpatory evidence, that is evidence that could prove the innocence of the defendant, must be supplied to him for review.
Northwest District Court Judge William McLees denied the request with reasoning based in how the North Dakota Supreme Court has ruled on how to interpret "Brady violations" in criminal cases.
"... Brady does not apply where it is merely 'speculative whether the evidence might have been exculpatory, or might have been inculpatory.' If the defendant fails to demonstrate that the evidence was favorable to him, there is no Brady violation," McLees quoted from the N.D. Supreme Court decision in 1993's "State v. Steffes."