Bennett

ELKINS — The case of a Randolph County man accused of attempting to burn down a residence on Harrison Avenue was dismissed this week in Randolph County Magistrate Court.

Dylan Joseph Bennett, 25, appeared in Randolph County Magistrate Court for a preliminary hearing Monday afternoon with attorney Paul Gwaltney. Bennett was initially charged with first-degree arson, a felony.

At the hearing’s start, Assistant Randolph County Prosecutor Leckta Poling called Patrolman Preston S. Marsh with the Elkins City Police Department to testify. Marsh filed the initial criminal complaint against Bennett on Aug. 1.

Marsh explained that, while Sgt. K.S. Shiflett of the Elkins City Police Department was the initial responding officer on Aug. 1, the case had been given to Marsh due to Shifflet having “two other cases he was working on.”

Marsh described the residence on Harrison Avenue where the alleged arson occurred and said that, according to pictures taken of the crime scene, damage was sustained to the outside brick and staircase, with possible smoke damage to a nearby window.

The residence was believed to be occupied at the time of the arson, Marsh said.

When Poling asked if anyone had been home at the time of the arson, Marsh began to explain what he knew based on a written report, when he was interrupted by an objection from Gwaltney. 

Gwaltney called what Marsh was about to testify to “hearsay” based on the written word of another officer. Poling argued that Marsh had barely begun to speak when Gwaltney objected, and that, if the written report was part of Marsh’s case, he could testify to it.

Gwaltney said that was “absolutely not” true and called what Poling said “false statements regarding the law.” Gwaltney argued “anything that’s written by someone else is hearsay.”

The back and forth between Gwaltney and Poling continued until Randolph County Magistrate Ben Shepler interjected and said Marsh could answer Poling’s question and could testify on “what his investigation has led him” to find.

As Marsh began to answer the question a second time, stating that statements from witnesses were given to him by Shifflet, Gwaltney objected again, once again citing hearsay, and said there was no evidence that the witnesses were even credible. Shepler repeated that Marsh could testify on what he had investigated.

Poling continued to question Marsh and at one point asked if photos taken from the crime scene were part of his case file. Marsh said yes and Gwaltney objected again, saying that the question was not relevant. Shepler said the question was asked and answered, but Gwaltney moved to strike Marsh’s answer due to its irrelevance.

Poling argued that Marsh could testify as to what items were seized and taken as part of the investigation, to which Gwaltney stated that was only true if Marsh had taken the photographs himself. Shepler interjected again and said he was going to allow Marsh’s answer to remain on the record.

When asked by Poling if he had reviewed any statements from Bennett, Marsh stated that he did not as Bennett was unable to be located at the time. As Marsh began to state that Bennett fled, Gwaltney objected once more, citing cause for speculation.

Poling interrupted Gwaltney, saying that his objection was more suited as a cross-examination question. This led to another back and forth between Gwaltney and Poling. Shepler repeated once more that Marsh was allowed to testify on what his investigation led him to.

When Poling had finished her questions for Marsh, Gwaltney moved for the case against Bennett to be dismissed, as there was no testimony that proved that Bennett had committed first-degree arson. He added that, unless the state had more witnesses to call, dismissal was “appropriate.”

Poling stepped out of the courtroom to see if the other witnesses had arrived. When she returned she informed the court that there were no additional witnesses in the building.

Shepler accepted Gwaltney’s motion and dismissed the case against Bennett.

According to the criminal complaint filed by Marsh, on Aug. 1, Shiflett was dispatched to a residence on Harrison Avenue in regard to an attempted arson. The caller advised that Bennett had “tried to set their house on fire.”

Upon arriving on the scene, Shiflett informed Randolph 911 that there had been a small fire that had been extinguished and the Elkins Fire Department was not needed, the complaint states. Shiflett took photos of the damage done to the building and collected statements from two alleged victims. Shiflett informed Randolph 911 that the suspect had left prior to his arrival and that he would begin looking for the suspect.

Marsh writes in the complaint that Shiflett assigned him to investigate the incident. In the alleged victims’ written statements, they claim Bennett was the one who started the fire. Marsh writes that photos of the scene showed burnmarks to the building “near the backsteps.” Photos also showed clothes and a paint can that the victims claim were used to help start the fire. The alleged victims both stated that Bennett arrived at the residence approximately one hour before the initial 911 call.

According to the complaint, the alleged victims stated that Bennett was “yelling about his ex-girlfriend” being in the residence and threatened to burn the residence down before the alleged victims told him to leave. They stated that Bennett later returned and “attempted to set the residence on fire by lighting items on fire against the wall of the residence.”

Bennett allegedly ran when he saw the two alleged victims watching him light the fire, the complaint states. One of the alleged victims further stated that Bennett “grabbed the water hose” and fled the area. Marsh writes that Bennett was “intending to make it more difficult for the victims to extinguish the fire.”