ELKINS — The cases against two Harman women facing felony drug charges are headed to the grand jury after probable cause was found against one and another waived her right to a preliminary hearing.

Josie Ann Ray, 40, and Cassandra Jean Bennett, 35, appeared in Randolph County Magistrate Court for their individual preliminary hearings

Ray is charged with intent to deliver, and conspiracy to deliver. She is being held in the Tygart Valley Regional Jail on a $15,000 cash-only bond.

Bennett is also charged with intent to deliver, and conspiracy to deliver, and is being held in the Tygart Valley Regional Jail on a $15,000 cash-only bond.

Before her hearing began, Ray’s attorney, James Hawkins Jr., asked Randolph County Magistrate Tracy Harper to lower and modify Ray’s bond to a $5,000 surety or 10% bond. Hawkins called Ray’s current cash-only bond “ridiculous,” “not right” and “not proper” as he claims it was set so Ray could not pay it.

Randolph County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Christina Harper said she believed that bond was sufficient as set, but left the decision to the discretion of the court.

Magistrate Harper denied the bond modification request after finding probable cause in the case.

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Harper called on Senior Trooper C.A. Hawkins of the Elkins Detachment of the West Virginia State Police to testify before the court. Trooper Hawkins had filed the initial criminal complaint against Ray.

Trooper Hawkins told the court that on April 23, a traffic stop was conducted by Trooper First Class K.C. Raymond on U.S. Route 33 on Allegheny Mountain, and found a driver and passenger were in possession of methamphetamine. The driver and passenger indicated to officers that they had just purchased the drugs from Ray in Harman.

A search warrant was obtained and carried out at Ray’s residence by several officers, Trooper Hawkins said. He told the court that, at the residence, they found a “substance consistent with methamphetamine,” digital scales, a “larger quantity” of small plastic bags and “other drug paraphernalia.”

Trooper Hawkins said he and the other officers were given consent by Ray to look at her Cash App transactions and Facebook messages, and found that the messages were consistent with what the officers were told and saw on the passenger’s cell phone from the previous traffic stop.

When asked by Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Harper if the transactions were consistent with Ray selling methamphetamine, Trooper Hawkins said yes.

Bennett arrived at Ray’s residence during the investigation, Trooper Hawkins said, and it was found by another officer that Bennett had methamphetamine on her person, and scales and small plastic baggies were found in her vehicle.

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Harper questioned if there was any evidence of Ray and Bennett conspiring to sell methamphetamine together, to which Trooper Hawkins responded that, though he did not speak with Bennett directly, he was informed by other officers “that there was discussion that they had been in cohorts together.”

During cross-examination, attorney James Hawkins asked Trooper Hawkins as to where the supposed methamphetamine was found and who found it. Trooper Hawkins said that he had found it in a container, inside a dresser in a bedroom said to belong to Ray.

When asked who lived in the residence, Trooper Hawkins said that Ray and, it was his understanding, Bennett was a part-time resident. 

James Hawkins questioned how Trooper Hawkins knew that the methamphetamine in the house was for distribution and not for Ray’s personal use, to which Trooper Hawkins said the scales and bags found with the methamphetamine were consistent with delivering. When asked how he knew the scales and bags weren’t also for her personal use and not for distribution, Trooper Hawkins admitted that he did not know.

In closing arguments, James Hawkins said the state failed to prove probable cause as the alleged Cash App transactions and Facebook messages between the passenger and Ray were “dubious at best” and that there was still a lot left unanswered as to the “who, what, where and why” regarding if there was a conspiracy between Ray and Bennett.

After Ray’s hearing, Bennett waived her right to a preliminary hearing. Her attorney, Les Mallow, asked Magistrate Harper to modify Bennett’s bond to include property or surety component, as well as allow her to go to rehab as part of the modification. Mallow added that, even if the bond modification was denied, they would still ask for Bennett to have the ability to attend rehab at a facility.

Mallow told the court that Bennett had been accepted to Valley Treatment Center’s New Beginnings for Women in Fairmont, and the chance to go to rehab was the “most important” to Bennett.

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Harper said she believed that the bond was sufficient as set, but left the possibility of Bennett attending rehab to the discretion of the court.

Magistrate Harper denied the bond modification and did not allow Bennett to attend rehab in Fairmont.