ALPENA — The value of destroyed evidence was debated Tuesday in Alpena’s 88th District Court at a hearing for Todd Agar, of Ossineke.

Agar, accused of sexually assaulting three women when they were between the ages of 6 and 14, appeared in the courtroom via a videoconferencing system from a prison in the Upper Peninsula, where he is being held on drug-related charges.

At issue during the hearing was an audiotape of a police conversation with a woman who, in 2015, told police she hadn’t been assaulted by Agar.

At the time, the Alpena County Prosecutor’s Office decided to not press charges against Agar. That was the second time Agar had been accused. He had been investigated but never charged also in 2005.

Michigan State Police, following the prosecutor’s orders at the time, destroyed the audiotape, following standard procedure for unneeded materials.

Agar, through defense attorney Justin Wilson, argued police should have known the recording may have been needed in a future case. The destroyed evidence was crucial to his case, he contended, and its absence was tantamount to willful suppression of evidence.

Alpena County Assistant Prosecutor Nancy Ward argued there was no reason for the recording to be kept at the time, as the prosecution had decided it didn’t have enough evidence to pursue the accusations. The defense can use police reports and cross-examination of witnesses to obtain the same information if the case goes to trial, Ward said.

Agar was not present for most of Tuesday’s hearing.

Shortly after the proceedings began, the defendant announced he was firing his attorney and hiring legal counsel. Upon being told the hearing would proceed because a new attorney had not yet been secured, Agar, visible on prison cameras, picked up a thick stack of papers and exited.

“Mr. Agar has walked out of the room,” LaCross dictated for the record, before continuing to hear arguments from Wilson, to whom news of his firing was a surprise.

LaCross will deliberate the matter and determine whether the missing evidence is adequate to grant Agar’s motion to dismiss the case or if it will be bound over to Circuit Court.

If LaCross binds Agar over, it would be the second time the current case has done so.

The current charges against Agar were dismissed and then re-charged in October after the 26th Circuit Court ruled Agar had been denied due process when the courts took one day too long to hold a preliminary exam.

Julie Riddle can be reached at 989-358-5693, jriddle@thealpenanews.com or on Twitter @jriddleX.