ELKINS — The case against an Elkins man accused of a break-in and burglary on Second Street has been dismissed after no probable cause was found during a preliminary hearing in Randolph County Magistrate Court.

Earl Thomas Lanham, 39, who was charged with burglary, a felony, appeared in Randolph County Magistrate Court Monday afternoon. He was accused of stealing an electric bike valued at approximately $1,500.

In the same incident, William Houdini Johnson, 40, of Valley Head, was arrested and charged with destruction of property, a misdemeanor.

At the start of Monday’s preliminary hearing for Lanham, Assistant Randolph County Prosecutor Colin Henning called Patrolman C.J. Elmore of the Elkins Police Department to the stand.

Elmore testified that, on Dec. 21, he responded to a reported active breaking and entering at a residence on 210 Second Street. The resident told Elmore that two masked male individuals broke into her apartment and stole her electric bike. 

The resident also informed Elmore that her neighbor had a Ring doorbell camera that had recorded the incident. The neighbor permitted him to view and use the camera footage, after which Elmore put out a description of the two individuals to other officers in the area. According to the criminal complaint written by Elmore, the footage allegedly showed one man wearing a brown leather jacket and a face mask, and a second man wearing a black leather jacket and a face mask.

Elmore testified that Elkins City Police Patrolman First Class D.T. Sayre, using the description given, found someone that matched the description. However, when Elmore was asked by Henning as to what Sayer relayed back to him, Lanham’s attorney, Morris Davis, objected on the basis of hearsay, stating that Sayer should have been at the Magistrate Court hearing himself to testify about what he said.

Henning argued that the rules of a preliminary hearing allow for hearsay when credibility is not in question. He added that, because of the holidays, it would not be as easy as Davis suggested to bring Sayer in on such short notice. Randolph County Magistrate Tracy Harper overruled Davis’ objection.

Elmore began to explain what Sayer told him was said by another party when Davis objected again, citing “hearsay within hearsay.” Henning stated that his argument against hearsay remained the same; however, Harper sustained Davis’ objection.

Henning then asked Elmore what actions he took based on what he was told by Sayer, to which Elmore responded that they went to an apartment on South Henry Avenue and spoke to Johnson, but before Elmore could continue, Davis again objected, citing that it would be hearsay for Elmore to say what Johnson said to him. Harper overruled the objection.

“(Elmore) has to be able to testify to tell his testimony,” Harper said.

Elmore then explained that Johnson was placed under arrest “based upon he was matching the description.” 

Elmore said, when questioned, Johnson stated that Lanham was the other individual involved in the burglary. Elmore added that the stolen electric bicycle was found outside the apartment on South Henry Avenue by Randolph County Sheriff Office’s Deputy B.M. Roy.

Elmore stated that Lanham was also in the apartment with Johnson and several others. When asked by Henning if Lanham matched the description from the doorbell camera footage, Elmore said that clothes inside the apartment matched the footage, but before Elmore could go on and speak about a statement given by someone in the apartment about Lanham, Davis objected again.

“The officer is about to testify about a statement that someone else made to, I believe, another officer that was then made to this officer, so have a hearsay within a hearsay issue,” Davis said.

He went on to add that the statement from the witness in the apartment should not be trusted due to the witness having a “pretty pronounced criminal history,” citing Henning’s previous argument on credibility. Henning moved to strike the question after Elmore clarified that the witness’ statement was given to Sayer, not him.

According to the criminal complaint, the witness had told officers that the clothes that matched the description of the camera footage belonged to Lanham.

During cross examination, Davis asked Elmore if other people were in the South Henry Avenue apartment and if he spoke to them. Elmore said there were other people in the apartment, but he did not know the exact number and did not speak to them.

Henning, in redirect examination, then asked Elmore again if he had seen the camera footage and if the description matched Lanham. Elmore responded that, yes, he had seen the footage and the description matched clothes found in the South Henry Avenue apartment, but Lanham was not wearing the clothes at the time the police arrived at the apartment.

Davis, in recross, then asked Elmore if Lanham wasn’t wearing the clothes found at the apartment and if there were other men at the apartment, to which Elmore replied that Lanham was not wearing the clothes when they arrived and that other

Harper, after a period of consideration in the courtroom, took a five-minute recess. When she returned, Harper said the state had not established probable cause against Lanham, and then dismissed the case, releasing Lanham from bond.