Felony case against Montrose man moving forward
Trending
ELKINS -- Probable cause has been found in a felony case involving a Randolph County man accused of illegally possessing firearms as a convicted felon.
Andrew Stephen Purdum, 38, of Montrose, is charged with being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, a felony. He is also charged with multiple misdemeanors, including domestic assault; domestic battery; fleeing or attempting to feel from law enforcement in a vehicle; unlawful removal, injury to or destruction of property; and interfering with emergency communications.
Purdum is being held at the Tygart Valley Regional Jail on a $15,000 cash-only bond, a $4,000 cash-only bond and a $2,000 cash-only bond, set by Randolph County Magistrate Tracy M. Harper.
On Monday afternoon, Purdum appeared in Randolph County Magistrate Court for a preliminary hearing regarding the felony charge of a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. Purdum was represented by attorney Paul Gwaltney, and the state was represented by Assistant Randolph County Prosecutor Leckta Poling. Magistrate Harper presided over the hearing and found probable cause. The case will now be reviewed by a Randolph County grand jury.
At the hearing’s start, Poling called Ashley Purdum to testify before the court. Ashley Purdum is Andrew Purdum’s wife.
In her testimony, Ashley Purdum explained that her husband had been residing in his mother’s home, which was next door to Ashley Purdum’s residence. She also told the court that she was aware that Andrew Purdum had been convicted of aggravated assault, a felony, around 2018. Ashley Purdum said she was fully aware of the West Virginia law that prohibited anyone convicted of a felony from being in possession of firearms, and that she did not have any firearms in the home she had shared with Andrew Purdum.
When Poling attempted to ask whether or not Ashley and Andrew had ever discussed him being prohibited from possessing firearms, Gwaltney objected and invoked spousal privilege. In West Virginia’s state code, spousal privilege does not allow spouses to be called as witnesses against each other, unless consent is given by the accused spouse, or unless the crime was committed by one spouse against the other spouse.
When Poling attempted to ask if Ashley Purdum knew that Andrew Purdum possessed any firearms, Gwaltney again objected and invoked spousal privilege on behalf of his client. After the second objection, Poling said she had no more questions for Ashley Purdum. Gwaltney said the defense did not have any questions for her either.
Poling then called Connie Purdum, Andrew Purdum’s mother, to testify.
After being wheeled into the courtroom, Connie Purdum told the court that Andrew Purdum had been living with her “on and off” for several months, up to a year. She said that her husband, who had passed away, was a gunsmith who owned “a lot” of guns that had been kept in the home. A portion of the guns were kept in a large passcode-protected safe and the rest were kept in a smaller safe that had a key.
Connie Purdum said ownership of the firearms wasn’t entirely clear as her husband did not leave any specific directions for the firearms in his will. She said that she and her daughter-in-law, Ashley Purdum, knew the passcode to the large safe, but she guessed that Andrew Purdum figured out the code as it was a commonly used passcode in the family. She also told the court that Andrew Purdum kept the key to the smaller safe.
When Poling asked if she had seen Andrew Purdum shoot any of the firearms, Connie Purdum said she had heard gun shots in the past, but had not seen him use the guns herself. Poling then asked Connie Purdum if she knew that Andrew Purdum could not reside in a home that had firearms. Connie Purdum said she did not know this and she did not remember Andrew Purdum ever telling her this fact. She also told the court that she had seen Andrew Purdum carry the firearms on his person “once or twice.”
In cross-examination, Gwaltney asked multiple questions regarding when Connie Purdum saw Andrew Purdum carrying a firearm. Connie Purdum admitted that, despite her husband’s hobby, she knew very little about guns, but she remembered being in the kitchen and seeing Andrew Purdum carry a rifle on his arm as he left the house. She said this happened about one week before Andrew Purdum was arrested for this felony charge and his misdemeanor charges.
During a series of follow-up questions from Poling, Connie Purdum told the court she has since reported some of the guns as missing and that she had previously seen Andrew Purdum working on the firearms in the same room as the large safe.
Poling’s final witness was Trooper Thomas J. Sclimenti of the West Virginia State Police’s Elkins Detachment. Sclimenti is the investigating officer in this case.
In his testimony, Sclimenti told the court that, on Aug. 23, officers responded to a domestic incident. Ashley Purdum and Connie Purdum were the alleged victims of the incident, with Andrew Purdum being the alleged aggressor; however, Andrew Purdum was not on the scene when officers arrived. Sclimenti said he had been informed that Andrew Purdum was living with Connie Purdum and that there were firearms in that residence. In his investigation, Sclimenti said he determined that Andrew Purdum had access to those firearms.
During a search of Connie Purdum’s home, Sclimenti said he observed the large gun safe and the room it was kept in. Sclimenti saw a .22 caliber revolver on top of the large gun safe and a .357 caliber single-shot pistol on the bed in that room. Sclimenti also said that he observed male clothing in that room, and he was informed that Andrew Purdum stayed in that room.
Two large boxes of ammunition that needed “multiple people to carry” were also found in the home, as well as components to guns found near the second smaller gun safe, Sclimenti said. Officers removed the guns from the home at Connie Purdum’s request in case Andrew Purdum returned.
In cross-examination, Gwaltney raised questioned regarding the difference between having access to something and possessing it. He also repeatedly referred to West Virginia Code §61-7-7, regarding persons prohibited from possessing firearms, asking Sclimenti if that specific part of the code ever uses the word “access.” Sclimenti said he did not know where it says the word “access” in §61-7-7, to which Gwaltney then said it wasn’t in there.
Gwaltney also asked Sclimenti if he checked the .22 caliber revolver and the .357 caliber single-shot pistol he found outside of the large gun safe. Sclimenti said he did not as it was “not pertinent.” When Gwaltney questioned him as to why it was not pertinent, asking if that’s how they train troopers at the State Police Academy, Sclimenti explained that the West Virginia State Police Lab has refused to run fingerprint tests in the past if the item in question was clearly accessed by the suspect, as it “takes resources.” Sclimenti added that he had been denied by the lab before, when he tried to run fingerprints during a previous shooting investigation in Lewis County, because it was known that the suspect had handled the weapon.
After the preliminary hearing, Harper presided over a bond modification hearing for multiple misdemeanor charges Andrew Purdum is facing. Despite the hearing being on the docket at the request of the defense, Qwaltney told the court that the defense did not wish to make a motion regarding bond. The state had nothing they wished to bring forward. Harper then adjourned the hearing.
According to one of the criminal complaints filed by Sclimenti against Andrew Purdum, on Aug. 24, the trooper received a call about an “active domestic” in Montrose, in which a male subject was “attempting to break into this residence and the female caller was locked inside.”
Deputy Connor Waldron of the Randolph County Sheriff's Office, already on the scene, told the trooper that the male subject, identified as Andrew Purdum, was “fleeing into the field on a vehicle,” the complaint states. Officers were told that Purdum had allegedly “pushed over” an elderly female, identified as Connie Purdum, and was causing damage to a vehicle and removing lug nuts.
The EMS was called to transport Connie Purdum for treatment of her injuries, according to the complaint. Connie Purdum told officers that Andrew Purdum “threatened to kill her” and that “this is the usual behavior when he is on drugs.”
During her testimony on Monday, Connie Purdum spoke a little bit about the incident, telling the court that Andrew Purdum was mad that the guns were gone. He allegedly poured water on her, broke her phone as she tried to call 911 and said he was going to watch her die. Sclimenti also testified to this, adding that Andrew Purdum had allegedly also threatened to burn the house down with Connie Purdum inside.