Warren Todd Wade

Warren Todd Wade, 47, of HC 68 Box 21, Wileyville, was convicted of two counts of wanton endangerment involving a firearm following his two-day trial in Wetzel County Circuit Court. Judge Mark A. Karl presided over the trial as Wetzel County Prosecuting Attorney Timothy Haught and Defense Attorney Kevin Neiswonger laid evidence before a jury pertaining to the events on Sept. 11, 2010, wherein Wade pointed a firearm intentionally and recklessly at Cpl. Roger G. Spragg II and Deputy R. L. Scott Jr. in Wetzel County, putting their lives, and even his own life, in danger. Wade was remanded to the Northern Regional Jail following the reading of the verdict and a sentencing hearing will be held following the submission of post-trial motions and a pre-sentence report.

Jurors deliberated for approximately four hours Tuesday afternoon before returning the guilty verdicts. According to the jury charge agreed upon by all parties, the jury had to make one of three verdicts: They could determine Wade was guilty of wanton endangerment involving a firearm, guilty of the lesser included offense of brandishing a deadly weapon, or find him not guilty. Notably, wanton endangerment was defined to jurors as any act done in intentional or reckless disregard of others which causes substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another. However, the term brandishing pertained to any act where one is armed with a deadly weapon and uses it in any way to cause a breach of the peace. In this case, jurors found Wade to have intentionally and recklessly possessed the firearm which could have caused a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Following jury selection Monday, the state gave its opening statement to the jurors, summarizing the events of Sept. 11, 2010, and outlining the state’s evidence in the matter.

“The state will prove to you today that Mr. Wade possessed a firearm-a Ruger 7 mm magnum hunting rifle,” Haught began, adding that Wade performed that act which created a substantial risk when the rifle was pointed at Deputies Spragg and Scott when they arrived at Wade’s residence to serve him papers.

Regarding the firearm, Haught further stated the rifle was loaded, with the shell in the chamber of the firearm, and that the safety was off.

“The case is simple. It should not take us long to go through the evidence,” Haught surmised. “He (Wade) pointed a loaded firearm at two police officers. That evidence is sufficient to show that he put them in danger. The proper verdict is to find him guilty on both counts.”

The defense then gave his opening remarks to those present by instilling in the jury just how much power they held in their hands as jurors. He noted the jurors’ decision they made in the case would be an important one, but that furthermore it would be “the most important decision” for the defendant.

He then asked jurors to keep two rules in mind as the evidence was presented to them: the fact that Wade was presumed innocent and that the proof has to be “so strong, so convincing, and so credible, that you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Neiswonger went on to explain to the jury that on the day in question, Wade was at his house and had no idea police were coming. “He was confused, startled, then turned one way, and then the other. He turned with the gun.” He noted the police were nervous and weren’t expecting a gun in the scenario, but that the state would have to prove that the defendant “intentionally and recklessly possessed the firearm.”

What happened when police came was an unfortunate incident and coincidence, Neiswonger stated. “We believe you will hear testimony that Mr. Wade did not perform any act intentionally that created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.” Neiswonger added the defendant put down his weapon upon instruction from the officers during what was in total a very short incident. “We feel at the end of the day you will not be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The state called its first witness, Deputy Roger Spragg of the Wetzel County Sheriff’s Office. Spragg was the officer charged with serving Wade papers and when suspecting Wade may flee, Spragg testified he asked Deputy Rob Scott to accompany him. The two strategized that Spragg would approach Wade in such a way that should he run, he would likely run in the direction where Scott would be at the other side of the house.

The two approached the Wade home, which is located at the fork of Hupp Ridge Road and Fluharty Run, with Spragg approaching from the left and Scott waiting at the right side. Spragg testified that Wade clearly saw him coming up to the house, noting Wade locked eye contact with him as he sat at a table in the back yard. Spragg then said he tried to make conversation with the defendant, but that within seconds Wade stood up with a rifle, turned toward him, and pointed the rifle at him. At this point Spragg yelled out “Gun!” so Deputy Scott would know the situation had changed.

Spragg said when Wade turned to face him, he put the butt of the gun under his arm and pointed the gun directly at him. Spragg then retreated to a large tree because the bullet proof vest wasn’t designed for rifle hits. “A shot would be fatal,” he said.

Spragg then told jurors Deputy Scott examined the rifle to learn it was in the firing position. However, it is unknown if Wade had his finger on the trigger.

When asked if they found any targets, sandbags, or the like, Spragg said “No,” adding they only found a rifle with one round in the chamber, and a phone and phone book on the table, along with a sleeve of rounds on the table where Wade was seated.

Wade was served his papers and arrested for wanton endangerment involving a firearm. Notably, Spragg said Wade never said a word during the entire incident, nor did he say a word during the trip to the NRJ. He did not put his hands up, either, according to Spragg’s testimony. When asked if he knew there was a gun on the table, Spragg said, “No.” Furthermore, when asked if Wade ever tried to tell him he had a firearm, Spragg again said, “No.”

Haught asked Spragg if he noticed anything about Wade after he arrested him, to which Spragg said “Yes,” and that he and Scott noticed the strong scent of alcohol, that he was red in the face, had difficulty with his balance, and was likely intoxicated.

When asked if he or Scott had to draw their weapons, Spragg said they both did. “Did you believe you and Deputy Scott were in danger? Haught asked. “Yes,” replied Spragg. “Basically, a man was armed with a powerful firearm.” Haught then asked, “What, if any, risk of bodily harm or death were you in?” Spragg replied, “A shot with that rifle would have killed us.”

Haught also asked if Wade was located with the firearm within 500 feet of a residence or dwelling, to which Spragg answered in the affirmative. To follow up, Haught asked Spragg if he would sight-in a rifle within that distance. Spragg replied simply, “No. It’s unsafe and illegal.”

Spragg was then handed a stack of photographs of Wade’s home to examine. Spragg confirmed he had taken some of the photos the day of the incident and a few a day or two afterward. He said the photos accurately depicted the scenario the day of the offense. He added the photos showed that there was a clear view between where he was pulling up in his marked vehicle and where Wade was seated.

“Do you feel you were in danger when he (Wade) pointed the firearm at you?” Haught asked. “Yes,” said Spragg. Haught then asked if it appeared Wade had pointed the gun accidentally at him, Spragg said it did not appear that way. “How does it feel to have a rifle pointed at you?” Haught continued. “Very uncomfortable,” Spragg said. “It’s dangerous and you could potentially die. I don’t wish to be shot.”

Haught then asked if this could have been done out of surprise, to which Spragg replied, not in his opinion, noting it took him several seconds to walk toward Wade, that Wade had made eye contact with him, and that he had announced himself and tried to speak with the defendant. Notably, Spragg added he didn’t have his weapon drawn, nor did he threaten Wade.

Neiswonger then cross-examined Spragg, stating, “You certainly didn’t let Wade know you were coming.” To this Spragg said that was correct, because they didn’t want Wade to know they were coming since they believed him to be a flight risk. Neiswonger followed up confirming Wade then wasn’t waiting for police, to which Spragg agreed.

Neiswonger brought up the fact there was a steep bank behind the house and asked if the officers ever checked for targets across the way, to which Spragg answered, “No.” “Wade was sitting at a table, not expecting anyone,” Neiswonger began. “You get out of your cruiser and instead of walking up to him, you circled around to get behind him. Wouldn’t that have created some suspicion?” Spragg also agreed to his remarks.

Haught then redirected Spragg, handing him two other pieces of evidence, those being the cartridge taken from the firearm and sleeve of ammunition which was found beside the rifle on the table.

“Did you go to the residence where Wade was with the intention of harming him?” Haught asked. “No,” Spragg said. Haught then asked if he regretted the fact he didn’t shoot Wade. Spragg said, “Sometimes.” Then Haught asked why Spragg didn’t shoot him. Spragg said he wasn’t sure where Deputy Scott was and didn’t want to inadvertently shoot Scott. Haught then asked if Spragg had reason to shoot Wade, to which Spragg said, “Absolutely.”

The state then called former Deputy Rob Scott to the stand. Scott, who now works for Consol Energy, Inc., corroborated Spragg’s version of events, stating he had driven to the right side of the residence and that as soon as he got out of his vehicle he heard Spragg call out “Gun!” Scott testified he then rushed to the back yard to see Wade pointing the rifle at Spragg. He then drew his own gun and called out to Wade, identifying himself and ordering him to put his gun down, wherein Wade turned to Scott, posing the gun in his direction.

Haught asked if it was possible to fire a rifle the way Wade was holding it under his arm, to which Scott said “Yes.” In fact, one can fire a rifle from the hip. Haught then asked why he didn’t shoot Wade, to which Scott replied he didn’t fire because Spragg was in the line of fire, noting he could have accidentally hit Spragg by either missing Wade or by having the bullet pass through Wade onto Spragg.

At that point Scott said Wade was tackled and handcuffed. Scott then retrieved the rifle and opened its chamber to see a bullet was loaded in the firing position. Haught asked if Scott was wearing a bullet proof vest, to which Scott said he was but, just as what Spragg said, the vest would not have protected him from a rifle shot.

Haught asked what was going through Scott’s mind at the time of the incident. Scott said, “I didn’t wanna get shot” and that he was thinking “I hope he (Wade) doesn’t pull the trigger.” Haught then asked if Scott would have been shot had the gun discharged. “Yes, absolutely,” Scott said. “I could see the barrel at the end of the scope.”

Haught asked if Scott used hunting rifles, which Scott confirmed. Regarding the safe handling of a rifle, Scott said, “I was always taught you don’t point a firearm at anything you don’t wish to destroy.”

Haught then asked Scott if he believed Wade wanted to do harm or death, to which Scott said “Yes.” When asked if he believed Spragg was in danger as well, Scott again said “Yes.” Scott was asked if he observed anything about the situation to make one believe Wade could have accidentally pointed the gun at the deputies. His answer was, “No.” When asked if Scott thought Wade was just being negligent, Scott again replied, “No.”

Neiswonger cross-examined the witness, asking if Wade appeared startled when he turned around and saw him. Scott said “No” and then described Wade’s demeanor as deliberate and that he had turned and pointed the gun at him “long enough for me to feel I needed to use deadly force.”

Neiswonger then asked if Scott knew why Wade was outside with a rifle in the first place, to which Scott said he didn’t know, but added he’d never sighted-in a rifle without a target, sandbag, or such aids. To this, Neiswonger asked if Scott had ever shot a gun at random items in the woods. Scott said only with a bow. Scott did agree with the defense that you don’t necessarily need targets to sight-in a gun.

Haught redirected Scott, asking if the fact that Wade was intoxicated and pointing a loaded firearm was more dangerous. Scott agreed it was indeed more dangerous. “Were you in danger?” Haught asked. “Yes, sir, I was in fear of my life,” Scott replied.

The state then called Chief Deputy Rob Haught to testify on his experience in firearms. He was also the one to take the firearm and other items retrieved from the scene into evidence.

Chief Deputy Haught first confirmed the model of the rifle. He added the firearm was most generally used as a hunting rifle. Notably, the Chief Deputy has a weapon almost identical to the one in reference.

He then defined a firearm as a weapon that expels a projectile by means of explosion. He said he’d previously test-fired the weapon and deemed it operational, but did render the firearm inoperable for safety reasons during the trial.

The witness reiterated what the deputies said regarding gun safety, stating you only point the muzzle of a rifle if you intend to shoot what it’s pointed to. He further said that the sentiment was one of the four cardinal rules of gun safety. He further affirmed the gun could accidentally discharge under various circumstances.

He then explained to the court the significance of the bullet used with this particular firearm. He said the bullet was a jacketed, soft point bullet designed to expand when shot into soft tissue. When asked if serious bodily injury could occur to a human shot with this bullet, the Chief Deputy said, “Most definitely.” As with the other witnesses, he also stated the bullet proof vests worn by law enforcement would not stop a rifle round and that such vests are rated for pistol calibers only.

When cross-examined by the defense, Neiswonger stated that while the gun was pointed in the direction of the deputies, it didn’t necessarily mean it was done intentionally. “There are situations where guns discharge without the intention to hurt,” he said, to which the witness agreed.

The state retorted to that statement, saying there was something in between negligence and intentional hurt, that being recklessness. “Sometimes when people are shot, it’s because of reckless actions,” Haught said. He went on to say you can intentionally point a gun, but the act of it going off is not necessarily intentional. Chief Deputy Haught agreed, but added that the gun going off is the consequence of the intentional action.

“Is it reckless to point a firearm at a police officer?” the state asked. “Yes,” said the witness. Haught then asked if it was also reckless to do such an act while intoxicated, to which the Chief Deputy also said it was.

The defense then called its only witness, defendant Warren Todd Wade, to the stand. Neiswonger began his questioning by asking if Wade was outside that day with a gun. Wade said “Yes” and that he was getting ready to sell it and was checking to see it worked properly. Notably, Wade claimed to not be a gun expert.

Wade stated no one was home, nor did he expect anyone at the house. Neiswonger asked where Wade was going to shoot the gun, and he replied he was going to shoot at the hillside bank behind the house and had a paper target located in the woods. The defense asked if he’d done any shooting yet, to which Wade said he had not.

Then Neiswonger asked Wade to tell the court what the other items were doing on the table at the time. Wade said the phone and phone book were with him because he was looking up the number of an individual he was looking to sell the gun to.

Regarding the incident that occurred on Sept. 11, 2010, Wade’s version of the story was that he heard someone call out his name and he turned around and looked with the gun in his hands, as he was just getting ready to shoot the gun from the table into the woods. Neiswonger asked if he knew who called out for him and if the individual had identified himself to Wade. Wade said “No” to both. Wade further stated that unlike Deputy Spragg’s testimony, he did not make eye contact with the deputy and that it took a few seconds to realize it was an officer walking toward him. Then, as Wade recalls, he heard another voice from behind him tell him to put his gun down. He turned around, couldn’t see the person, but put the gun down.

Then Neiswonger asked him if he had been drinking that day. Wade confirmed, “I had a couple of beers.” The defense then asked if Wade intentionally pointed the gun at the deputies, to which Wade said, “No,” and added that his finger was not on the trigger.

Haught cross-examined the defendant, asking how many yards he was from his residence, and from his neighbor’s house. Wade answered 30 to 40 yards and 300 yards away, respectively. “Did you consider the possibility that shooting the firearm there might ricochet?” Haught asked. Wade said he had not. Wade went on to answer more of Haught’s questions, telling the court he had owned the gun for a couple of months, having purchased it for the purpose of reselling. He added he did not own any other firearms.

Haught then brought up Wade’s level of sobriety. He asked how many drinks did Wade actually have, to which he replied he had consumed three 12-ounce beers. He added he did not consider himself intoxicated and that it was not reckless behavior to be in possession of a loaded firearm while having had alcohol. Haught then went on to hound Wade with questions regarding the conflicting testimonies between Wade and the deputies, asking if such contradictions meant that the deputies were lying. To all of those questions, Wade remained firm in saying he wasn’t calling either of them liars. Haught then asked if Wade thought to tell the deputies what he was doing with the gun, to which Wade said they never asked him. “You didn’t think it was important at all to explain your actions?” Haught asked in a baffled tone. Wade gave no response.

Haught then asked if Wade thought what he did was reckless, and Wade replied in the negative. “You got a loaded firearm-safety is off-and you don’t think it’s reckless to point it at another human being?” Haught asked. “I didn’t do it intentionally,” was all Wade could say. Haught proceeded to question why he pointed the gun at Deputy Spragg. Wade retorted, “I wouldn’t say I pointed it. I had it in my hand. I never intentionally pointed it.” “Why didn’t you put the gun down,” Haught followed. “I don’t know,” said Wade. Haught then asked why Wade didn’t put his hands up and say “Don’t shoot!” “I didn’t think I was doing anything wrong,” Wade answered.

Haught concluded, asking Wade if there was anything he’d do differently today. “I don’t know what,” Wade said. “Even after all this testimony that you’ve heard about the safety of a firearm?” Haught questioned, to which Wade said, “I don’t know what I would do any differently.”

Following the testimony came the attorneys’ final arguments. “I intend to follow through with the statement I made, that we would provide beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Wade is guilty as charged,” Haught stated as he began his closing argument. “What you need to focus on is the evidence that was presented to you.” He went on to say there was no dispute regarding the facts that the defendant was in Wetzel County on Sept. 11, 2010, with a firearm. “The only issue in this case is whether or not the state has proven beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Wade wantonly endangered Deputy Scott and Deputy Spragg on that date with a firearm.” Haught went on to argue that if Wade pointed a loaded firearm at the two deputies, the natural or necessary consequences of that act was that the deputies were in serious danger. “I don’t have to prove they were injured,” Haught clarified to the jurors. “All I have to prove was there was a substantial risk of their injury by Mr. Wade’s actions, whether they were intentional or reckless.”

“How many of you would want me to pick that firearm up, load it with one of those 7 millimeter rounds, put it in the chamber, take the gun out of the safe position into the fire position, and point it at you?” Haught asked the jury. “How many of you would feel you were in danger if I did that?” Haught then said, “Of course it created a substantial risk of death or bodily injury. Ask a Boy Scout, 12 years old.”

Haught then implored the jury to remember common sense and reasonableness in determining a verdict. “If you saw a police officer and you had a firearm, would you pick it up or would you set it down?” Haught asked. “Let’s look at all the things Mr. Wade did that were reckless and/or intentional and put these two police officers at risk,” Haught began. “He had a loaded firearm, he was intoxicated. Pretty stupid thing, to point a firearm at a police officer,” Haught remarked. “Law enforcement officers, unlike Mr. Wade, understand and appreciate the dangerousness of firearms.” Haught then said Wade put those deputies’ lives in danger and put his own life in danger. “It’s a wonder that Mr. Wade is even alive-a fact which I don’t think he even appreciates,” Haught stated.

Haught continued, saying the evidence in the case clearly showed Wade’s actions were intentional or reckless and that the defendant used the “excuse of a five-year-old” by telling the court he didn’t mean to do it. “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please use your common sense. Please be reasonable. Please recognize that the state has proven beyond any reasonable doubt,” Haught pleaded. “This isn’t T.V., this is real life. These officers were put in danger in real life.”

Neiswonger began his closing argument by comparing the testimony given by the deputies in the case to witnesses following a car accident, where facts are recalled differently based on a person’s view or memory following a shocking event. He went on to say that in those instances, those witnesses strongly believe what they recall as truth. He asked the jury that in those cases, “Are those people lying?” “No,” he said. “They saw something that was shocking happen very quickly, and that’s what they remember.” In this case, Neiswonger said the deputies aren’t lying and Wade never said they were. Furthermore, Neiswonger said Wade wasn’t lying either. Later on Neiswonger summed up the event by saying is was clear there was a huge misunderstanding on what happened that day.

He then went on to tell jurors that the state “wants you to believe Mr. Wade had a crystal ball” in knowing the police were coming to see him. “They approached him (Wade) in a manner that was tactical and strategic. It’s clear they did not want him to know they were coming.” Neiswonger resolved, “The fact that Mr. Wade was sitting outside with a gun is purely coincidental. He could have been doing anything.”

Regarding the possible verdicts to the case, Neiswonger asked the jury to strongly consider the idea of reasonable doubt. “The state would have to prove that Mr. Wade held a gun in a manner that posed a risk,” he said as he reiterated that the defendant was simply startled and turned around with the gun in-hand. “He couldn’t act recklessly if he didn’t even know they were there,” he resolved. Notably, Neiswonger stated he was not trying to minimize what happened to Deputy Scott and Deputy Spragg during the course of the event. However, with that said Neiswonger added that for the state to “portray this as some attempt by Mr. Wade to intimidate or threaten a police officer is clearly wrong and unsupported by the evidence.”

Then the defense reminded the jury what Deputy Spragg answered when asked if he regretted not shooting the defendant, which was “Sometimes.” Neiswonger asked, “What kind of person regrets not killing another human being? If he hates Wade that much and regrets at times, he certainly has interest in the outcome of this case.” He went on to emphasize that there was a big difference between doing things intentionally and accidentally. “It’s unfortunate these sequences of events went down that way,” he said. “Does the evidence support that he (Wade) committed that crime without a reasonable doubt? Absolutely not.”

In his final rebuttal, Haught recited the police officer’s motto: Protect and Serve. “That’s what they were doing that day,” he said of the deputies who met with Wade to serve papers, adding that in doing their job, they had a firearm pointed at them.

Then Haught brought up the defense’s suggestion that the most important person in the courtroom was Wade, referring to Neiswonger’s remark made during his opening statement that the jury was making “the most important decision” for the defendant. However, Haught’s emphatic reply to this notion was, “What about the victims of crime? What about society?”

In reply to Neiswonger’s accusation that Deputy Spragg had in “interest in the outcome of this case,” Haught posed the question, “What is the consequence to them (the deputies)?” Haught answered that they could be charged. But most notably, Haught stated that it was Wade who in fact had the most at stake, and “the biggest reason to lie.”

In response to the conflicting retelling of the events of that day, Haught noted that in addition to being trained gunmen, police are also trained observers who document events regularly. “Neither one of them had a couple of beers,” Haught added. “Wouldn’t the fact that he (Wade) was intoxicated affect his credibility and memory?” Haught posed to jurors.

Lastly, Haught reminded the jury that Wade was in control of the firearm. “All he had to do was put the gun down,” he said. “The person that was in control of that situation and could have avoided the whole thing was Mr. Warren Todd Wade.” Haught then told jurors what comes with control and power: responsibility. “Are you going to hold him (Wade) responsible for his actions or not?” Haught asked the jury. “Are you going to hold him accountable for what he’s done?” Haught left the jury to deliberate, saying the evidence was there and the jury was in control. “You have the responsibility, the case is yours. Make the right decision.”

The jury decided Wade was guilty of the two charges of wanton endangerment. A sentencing date has not been set.

He still faces several more charges, all from the September 2010 grand jury term. In remaining indictments Wade is charged with one count each of the felony offense of sexual assault in the first degree and sexual abuse by a custodian wherein between Jan. 1 and Feb. 28, 2010, Wade, being 14 years old or more, allegedly engaged in sexual intercourse with a female child, who was younger than 12 years old and was not married to Wade. Count two of the indictment alleges that between the same span of time Wade engaged in sexual intercourse with a female child under his care, custody, or control.

Another indictment charges him with one count each of the felony offense of fleeing from an officer while driving under the influence of alcohol wherein on or about June 7, 2010, Wade, being under the influence of alcohol, fled in an all terrain vehicle on state Route 7 in Wetzel County from Deputy R. L. Scott Jr. after Deputy Scott had activated his blue lights in an attempt to stop the vehicle. Count two of this indictment alleges that on or about the same date Wade drove an all terrain vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

In his third indictment Wade is charged with one count each of the felony offense of entry of a building other than a dwelling and grand larceny wherein between Sept. 7 and 8, 2010, Wade allegedly entered Gary Cecil Motors in New Martinsville. Count two of the indictment alleges that during that time Wade stole a Ford F-150 pick-up truck having a value of more than $1,000 belonging to Gary Cecil Motors.

Wade is also charged with one count of the felony offense of sexual abuse in the first degree wherein on or about Feb. 7, 2010, he allegedly engaged in sexual contact with a named male.

Lastly, Wade is charged with one count of the felony offense of receiving stolen goods wherein between April 28 and June 7, 2010, Wade allegedly received a stolen 2006 Kawasaki Model 750 all terrain vehicle in Wetzel County which he knew or had reason to believe had been stolen.