Sex crimes case against Dakota Prairie school counselor dismissed
Jun. 21—GRAND FORKS — At the conclusion of a Friday morning, June 21, preliminary hearing in Nelson County court, Judge Kristi Venhuizen dismissed the case against a former Dakota Prairie School counselor alleging that he solicited, lured and sexually assaulted students.
Brendon Thomas Parsley, 48,
was charged with three Class C felonies in February
for crimes he allegedly committed against two students to whom he provided counseling services.
The purpose of a preliminary hearing is to determine if there's probable cause to support criminal charges being filed. Preliminary hearings can be waived by the defense. If the hearing is held, the state must provide evidence that probable cause exists to continue prosecuting the defendant.
The defense can question any of the state's witnesses and also may, but is not required to, bring in its own.
North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigations Special Agent Derek Madson testified for the state. He testified about interviews with the two alleged victims in the case, during which they spoke about Parsley's alleged inappropriate conduct.
The crime of solicitation of a minor was filed due to allegations that, when one of the alleged victims was in Parsley's house, he asked her if she was going to get on the bed and instructed her to leave after she hesitated.
The crime of luring a minor by electronic means was filed due to allegations that Parsley sent Facebook messages that were sexual in nature to the aforementioned minor.
The crime of sexual assault was filed due to allegations that Parsley made sexual contact with a minor as she was leaving a counseling session.
The charge of solicitation was dismissed without prejudice during the hearing, because it had incorrectly been filed as taking place when the alleged victim was under 15 years old. Madson, and the alleged victim herself, testified she was 17 at the time of the offense.
Jayme Tenneson, representing the state, requested that the charge be amended to solicitation of a minor older than 15, which would be a misdemeanor rather than a felony, according to his court statement.
However, the defense argued, and the judge agreed, that it was inappropriate to amend a charge during a preliminary hearing — it should have been done beforehand, when there was time for both parties to present arguments of probable cause for that charge.
It would have to be recharged accurately later.
Mark Friese, representing Parsley, called a private investigator to testify, as well as both the alleged victims.
Tenneson argued that calling the alleged victims to testify was undue harassment. However, by the end of the hearing, Venhuizen said if anyone was at fault for harassing the women, it was the state.
Tenneson failed to amend the information document prior to the hearing after Friese contacted him about the following errors: the luring charge was documented as occurring in 2014, however, the alleged victim testified it happened between 2015 and 2016; the sexual assault charge was documented as occurring in 2008, however, the alleged victim said it happened in 2009.
Amendments can be made to information documents as long as it doesn't materially affect the criminal allegations, however, failing to do so before the preliminary hearing resulted in an inability to establish probable cause for any of the charges as they were presented.
The case was dismissed entirely, though charges may be refiled.
