Earlier court case may impact election

Saturday, July 26, 2014

Nevada Daily Mail

A court case more than a decade ago may wind up playing a role in the upcoming election for prosecuting attorney.

Candidate Dustin Dunfield's involvement may keep him from assuming the office should he win the election and could potentially have other legal ramifications.

A court document filed by Dunfield, a Nevada attorney, at the Cedar County Circuit Court Wednesday requested his exemption from registering as a sex offender based on a December 1996 guilty plea.

The petition, which is open to the public through the Cedar County Circuit Clerk's office, stated that Dunfield was "ordered" to enter a plea agreement in violation of 566.034 of the Missouri Revised Statutes: second-degree statutory rape, a class C felony in the state of Missouri. The statute for statutory rape describes that an individual commits the crime if they are 21-years-old, or older, and has sexual intercourse with a person younger than 17.

Dunfield's petition referred to a Vernon County case that ended December 18, 1996, in which he was the defendant -- but court documents related to that case have been sealed and are not available to the public.

The Daily Mail contacted Dunfield Friday morning for comment about his petition to the court and his possible ineligibility as a candidate due to the felony charge he referenced in the submitted document.

According to state statutes, candidates for public office in Missouri must not have been convicted, found guilty or pleaded guilty to a state felony. When registering for candidacy, individuals sign an affidavit stating they meet all qualifications.

State election laws declare that individuals who falsely state they are qualified are punishable with a fine between $2,500 and $10,000, and up to five years in jail.

"I am eligible to run according to Missouri law," Dunfield said. "I was never convicted, I never pleaded guilty to and was never found guilty of a felony." He said he has never committed statutory rape.

Dunfield referenced a background check completed by The Missouri Bar, which licenses lawyers and attorneys, as evidence that he had not committed a crime.

"They do an in-depth, thorough character and fitness evaluation of everyone who's applied to the bar. They gave me my law license. This is a non-issue," he said.

Another case -- between the victim and Dunfield -- gives additional details about the case mentioned in Dunfield's petition. In 1997, a Vernon County woman sought damages against Dunfield, claiming his alleged involvement in a statutory rape, and filed a civil lawsuit seeking damages. According to court documents from the civil case, which remains open to the public, the woman filed a petition for damages against Dunfield on August 27, 1997. Court documents filed in October 1997 show that Dunfield failed to file a response to the case within 35 days of receiving a summons, allowing the court to make a default judgment.

On October 21, 1997, Vernon County Circuit Judge David Darnold made a judgment awarding the woman compensatory damages in the amount of $500,000 and $5 million in punitive damages. According to that judgment, Darnold stated that the court had previously found Dunfield committed statutory rape by having sex with the woman on multiple occasions when she was 16-years-old and he was 21. The judgment stated that Dunfield pleaded guilty to second-degree statutory rape in a Cedar County Circuit Court, due to a change of venue from Vernon County, on December 18, 1996.

Evidence presented with the civil case documents includes a copy of the felony charge information filed March 7, 1996, from then-prosecuting attorney Neal Quitno. The filing sheet states that Dunfield committed the class C felony second-degree statutory rape in December of 1995.

A second document used as evidence in the civil case includes a copy of Dunfield's order of probation, which indicates that he was sentenced to two years of unsupervised probation as a suspended execution of sentence for the statutory rape. The document was signed by Dunfield and dated December 18, 1996.

Following additional legal action which lasted several years, the original judgment in favor of the woman was overturned. In 2001, her civil case seeking damages was dismissed without prejudice.

According to the Chapter 589 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, any person who has been found guilty of, pleaded guilty to or enters a plea of no contest to a felony offense in RSMo. Chapter 566 -- which covers sexual offenses -- is required to register as an offender with county law enforcement.

Dunfield's petition filed in Cedar County Wednesday stated that his probation did not require him to register, that that it had recently come to his attention that an addendum to the 1995 program may have required him to register, and that more than 10 years had passed since he would have been required to submit information to the list.

His petition cited Missouri Revised Statutes section 589.400.7, which states that any individual who is convicted of or pleads guilty to second-degree statutory rape can petition the courts to have their name removed from the sexual offender registry.

In those situations, 10 years must have passed from the time the offender would have been required to register, and the county prosecuting attorney must be notified -- in this case, Prosecuting Attorney Lynn Ewing III, Dunfield's opponent in the 2014 general election for prosecuting attorney.

Ewing said Friday that an individual alerted him to the felony charge, and that he followed through with looking into the situation regarding Dunfield's failure to register as an offender and that he did so because of legal and ethical obligations.

"This matter was brought to my attention by a member of the public. I have, in my role as and in accordance with my responsibilities as prosecuting attorney and my responsibilities as per rule four of the Supreme Court, disclosed this information to law enforcement officials. Any further investigation of whether Mr. Dunfield has violated or is violating the law is in their hands," Ewing said.

Dunfield said Friday that he believed Ewing was creating political scandal to win an election.

"This is all dirty politics from Lynn Ewing's office in an attempt to slander me because he's scared he's going to lose his office," Dunfield said. "He's using his office to do some pretty unethical things that are in violation of things he's supposed to do as a prosecutor."

He said the current prosecuting attorney was mistaken in his investigation, and that Ewing's actions would negatively impact his and other families.

"He is under the belief that I have been convicted or pleaded guilty or found guilty of a felony in the state of Missouri. And he's wrong," Dunfield said.

Comments
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: