1 continues to ravage the victims and their families over two decades later.

1
2 Within his first three months at the church the Defendant formed a particularly

3 close friendship with Larry and Linda Jolly. Larry was an Elder of the Church at the time
4 and the couple had two young boys. In September or October of 1995, the Defendant

5 approached the couple and asked if he could tutor their youngest son M.J. who was 11

6 years old at the time, stating he did not believe M.J. was being challenged enough in

7 public schools. It should be noted that M.J. was an extremely intelligent young boy who
8 was of slight build and shy by nature. Larry Jolly was elated that their pastor had chosen

9 his son to tutor and readily agreed to same. It was agreed that the Defendant would pick

10 up M.J. and his older brother Michael up from school on Tuesdays and Thursdays and
11 take them back to the church where Defendant would “tutor” M.J. in his office behind

12 closed doors while his brother Michael did homework elsewhere within the church. M.J.
13 would later report that Defendant began spanking him with his pants down during the

14 second or third “tutoring session” for the most trivial of mistakes and sometimes just for

15 pausing too long before answering a question. The spankings were soon be followed by

16 the Defendant “comforting” the boy by rubbing his sore bottom and genitals.
17 Specifically, M.J. would later recount that after a misspelled word or misplaced

18 comma, the Defendant would make him pull his pants down and lay over his lap and

19 Defendant would then repeatedly strike him with paddles, switches, a belt or his hand.2

1
MVBC was a member of a larger worldwide association known as “ARBCA” (Association of Reformed
Baptist Churches of America). It would later be discovered that a small handful of high-ranking members
of ARBCA, to include the Defendant’s father (one of the Association’s primary founders and most revered
leaders), were involved in covering up the Defendant’s twisted abuse of the children of MBVC during a
church investigation back in 2000.
2
M.J.’s brother Michael testified that on several occasions while he was sitting outside Defendant’s office,
he could hear his younger brother crying out in pain and on one occasion he dragged a chair over to the
door to the office and peered through the window and saw his brother lying over Defendant’s lap bare-
bottomed.

-2-
1 The Defendant would tell M.J. that “God had commanded him to punish M.J.” and that
2 M.J. could not tell anyone or God would punish him and he would not get into heaven.3

3 On one of the very first occasions, the pain was so bad that M.J. instinctively reached
4 down to rub his raw bottom which angered the Defendant who told M.J. that he was not

5 allowed to “comfort” himself, that only he (the Defendant) could provide comfort

6 because he was the one who caused the pain. The Defendant then proceeded to rub

7 M.J.’s bare bottom and his genitals. Thereafter, almost every “tutoring” session involved
8 spankings and fondling of the boy’s buttocks and penis. M.J. would later testify that the

9 fondling would cause him to get an erection which both confused him and caused him

10 tremendous shame and guilt well into adulthood.

11 The spankings got so bad that M.J. dreaded going to the “tutoring” sessions and

12 often would cry on the days they were scheduled and beg his mother to allow him to stay
13 home. M.J. also told his parents about the spankings, but his father still made him go to

14 the sessions. M.J. received the message loud and clear that his parents trusted the pastor

15 and would not protect him from the abuse. During trial, M.J.s father, still a devoutly

16 religious man, tearfully testified that he had ignored his young son’s cries for help,
17 foolishly believing that because the Defendant was their Pastor, whatever he was doing

18 must be for M.J.’s benefit. Both M.J.’s parents would also testify that they should have

19 known something was deeply wrong because M.J. was not only a very bright boy and

20 excellent student, but he was also a very good boy who rarely misbehaved at home and

21 never once got in trouble at school. At the time M.J. did not tell his parents about the

22 sexual abuse because of his deep shame and embarrassment over his own physical

23 reaction to same.

3
Other children within the church would later report the exact same type of conduct and the exact same
threats from the Defendant.

-3-
1 In late December or early January (1995/1996), while M.J. was on Christmas
2 break from school, his parents needed to travel to Phoenix overnight and because M.J.

3 had a tutoring session scheduled for the next morning, Defendant suggested they allow
4 M.J. to spend the night with him at the parsonage so they would not have to rush home in

5 the morning to get him to his session. Unfortunately, they agreed. M.J. would later

6 recall that the evening started out nice, he and the Defendant had dinner and even

7 watched a movie. Following the movie however, the Defendant began to tell M.J. a story
8 about young Monks and how God commanded the Elder Monks to punish the younger

9 Monks for “sins they had not yet been caught for.” Defendant then told M.J. he was

10 going to do that to him that night. 4 He then produced two paddles which he said he had
11 personally made for the occasion and told M.J. to remove his pants and underwear

12 because he “wanted to see his butt turn red.” Defendant then commanded M.J. to bend
13 over and grab his ankles and began to paddle him. Next, he had the boy lay over his lap

14 where he continued to spank him with his hand and then had the boy sit on his lap while

15 he proceeded to fondle his penis. On this night, Defendant told M.J. he had chosen him

16 because he was special and he liked him.

17 The same conduct continued (with the “spankings” becoming more severe) for

18 another five to six “tutoring” sessions and M.J. finally broke down and told his parents

19 about the bare-bottomed spanking that had occurred during the sleepover for no reason at

20 all and Larry Jolly finally decided that this had crossed the line. Larry went to the other

21 church Elder, Rich Howe and together they spoke again with M.J. to confirm he was

22 telling the truth and then both men confronted the Defendant. The Defendant admitted to

23 regularly spanking M.J. during tutoring sessions but denied spanking him bare-bottomed

4
Because there was no “tutoring session” that evening, Defendant clearly needed to create an excuse to
punish and sexually abuse the boy.

-4-
1 or during the overnight visit. When questioned about why M.J. would make something
2 like this up, the Defendant first stated that M.J. was probably lying to get out of classes.

3 He next suggested that perhaps M.J. had dreamed it. When both Elders stated they
4 believed M.J., Defendant then said that if it did happen, he (the Defendant) was probably

5 asleep at the time and had no memory of what he had done to the boy.5 Elder Howe

6 suggested that the Defendant should no longer tutor M.J. or any other child alone and

7 Larry decided to discontinue the tutoring. After the meeting, M.J. was told by his father
8 that there should be no further talk about what had happened with the pastor behind

9 closed doors. Within just days following the confrontation however, the Defendant

10 approached Larry and suggested that he continue tutoring M.J. at the family residence
11 while either Linda or Larry were home. Again, much to his later regret, Larry agreed to

12 the arrangement largely because this was their pastor. Once again, 11-year-old M.J. got
13 the message loud and clear that even after reporting the bizarre bare-bottomed spanking

14 that had occurred during an overnight visit, his parents continued to trust the pastor rather

15 than protect their young son. The tutoring sessions in the Jolly home continued on a less

16 frequent basis until August or September of 1996 when M.J.’s mother began home-
17 schooling her son and decided he no longer needed tutoring.

18 In February of 1997 the Jolly family moved to Gilbert, Arizona and despite the

19 close call he had with the Elders after M.J.’s report, the Defendant began to carefully lay

20 the groundwork to procure his next victim. Over the course of the next several months

21 the Defendant began providing counsel to church member Carolyn Ladner who was

22 going through a very difficult divorce from an abusive husband - and who just happened

23 to have a 10-year-old son who, like M.J., was a smaller boy with a slight build and one

5
Defendant had previously told the Elders that he was known to walk in his sleep and do strange things
he would not remember in the morning.

-5-
1 who had just lost his father. In January of 1998, the Defendant approached Carolyn
2 Ladner and asked if could tutor her son, D.L. Caroline was happy to have the pastor tutor

3 (and frequently babysit) her son and Defendant began picking D.L. up from school two to
4 three times a week and taking him back to the church just as he had with M.J. And

5 within days he likewise began abusing him in the same exact manner as M.J., only far

6 worse as time went on. D.L. would later report that the Defendant would beat him with

7 paddles, switches, belts and a board (which was likely an ornamental boat oar the
8 Defendant kept at the parsonage) and would then “comfort” him afterwards by rubbing

9 his buttocks and penis. D.L. also reported that the Defendant would tell him the

10 “spankings” were ordered by God and that God would punish him and he would not go to
11 heaven if he told. D.L. recalled the Defendant would frequently bend him over the bed

12 while he brutally spanked and fondled him and on one occasion, he looked back and saw
13 the Defendant abruptly pull his hand out of his own pants. Defendant became enraged

14 and told the boy he was never to turn around and gave him an extra hard beating for

15 doing so. Thereafter, D.L. would still on occasion see the Defendant rubbing his crotch

16 over his clothing out of the corner of his eye while he was pressed into the bed being
17 beaten. The abuse would continue on a regular basis for years and D.L., fearful of

18 Defendant’s threats, endured it in silence.

19 In June of 1999, church members Pam and Taylor Welch lost their regular

20 summertime babysitter for their two young children, J.W. (10-year-old female) and W.W.

21 (8-year-old male). They knew the Defendant was “tutoring” D.L. and asked if he would

22 consider tutoring/babysitting their children a couple days a week over the summer.

23 Defendant agreed and in the same conversation alluded to whether he would be permitted

24 to discipline the children if they misbehaved. Later that evening Pam Welch would ask

-6-
1 her husband if he thought the pastor was suggesting he would spank the children and
2 asked him to speak to the Defendant and make it clear that would not be acceptable.

3 Much to his later regret, Taylor Welch never had that conversation with the Defendant
4 and within weeks both W.W. and J.W. reported to their parents that the Defendant had

5 spanked them – very hard - for not putting their cups on a coaster.6 Taylor confronted the

6 Defendant who acknowledged spanking the children and stated he did not think it was a

7 big deal. He went on to say that the spankings were necessary because the children were
8 ‘lazy and unfocused” but he did however promise not to do it again. Pam did not want to

9 send the children back to the Defendant after learning of the incident but Taylor (who had

10 just recently become a Deacon with the Church) convinced her it would be okay. Like
11 Larry and Linda Jolly, both Taylor and Pam Welch would tearfully testify that they

12 believed they had failed to protect their children.

13 J.W. and W.W. continued their “tutoring” the following week despite having

14 reported the bizarre spankings by their pastor and like M.J., they too got the message loud

15 clear, telling their parents did not prevent them from being sent back into the Defendant’s

16 care. They would quickly learn that it likewise did not prevent months of continued and
17 far more severe abuse – primarily of W.W. who would later report that Defendant would

18 take him into a bedroom at the parsonage or the church office alone, pull down his pants

19 and spank him bare-bottomed with a paddle. He would later recall at least one occasion

20 where Defendant rubbed his bottom afterwards.7

21 The Welch children were often babysat/tutored by the Defendant while D.L. was

6
J.W. reported that the Defendant spanked her so hard it literally knocked the wind out of her and she
could not even cry out.
7
Over a decade later D.L.’s wife would tell police that D.L. had confided to her that Defendant had
repeatedly sexually abused both he and W.W. that summer. Due to his young age, it is believed that
W.W. either did not recognize the significance of the “comforting” touches or had blocked them from his
memory.

-7-
1 present and both would recall that D.L. always seemed to get the worst of the abuse.
2 Both children would later report watching the Defendant beat D.L. with a boat oar. J.W.

3 also reported that on several occasions the Defendant would make her remain outside
4 while he would take the two boys one by one into his office and that when the boys came

5 out, they would be extremely upset and crying. All three children would later report that

6 Defendant had told them that if they told their parents they would not go to heaven and

7 all three made a pact that summer never to speak again about the abuse the pastor was
8 inflicting on them.

9 In September of 2000, Caroline picked her son D.L. up from the church after an

10 alleged tutoring session and noticed right away that he could barely walk to the car.
11 When she asked him what was wrong D.L. tearfully told her that he had gotten a

12 particularly bad paddling that day. When they got home Caroline asked to see D.L.’s
13 bottom and when the boy pulled down his pants, she was shocked to see that his buttocks

14 and the back of his thighs were covered with deep purple bruises, welts and blisters

15 which were in the shape of a two by four (the exact size of the ornamental boat oar that

16 Defendant kept in the parsonage). She asked D.L. what happened, and he reported he
17 had been paddled with a board and that he was bare-bottomed. She asked if this had

18 happened before, and he reported it happened all the time. Like M.J., D.L. did not report

19 the sexual abuse due to his own shame and confusion regarding same. C.L. who was

20 very insecure and very dependent on the church for emotional and financial support did

21 not know what to do, so she made excuses for D.L. to miss the next several “tutoring

22 sessions” and prayed about it for a few days and then spoke to her niece, Heather Ladner

23 (who was also a member of MVBC). Heather immediately reported the incident to Elder

24 Rich Howe (the same Elder who had confronted the Defendant about M.J.’s report five

-8-
1 years earlier). After confirming with Caroline what D.L. had reported and the horrible
2 bruises she had seen on her son, Elder Howe confronted the Defendant, who once again

3 admitted to frequently spanking the boy during tutoring sessions but denied it was bare-
4 bottomed and denied leaving bruises. Elder Howe informed the Defendant that Elder

5 Eric Owens would be picking him up at the parsonage the next day to go to Caroline’s

6 house to apologize.

7 When Elder Owens walked into the parsonage the following day, he described the
8 Defendant sitting on the couch with his head hung low. On the table before him were

9 several empty beer cans and a half-smoked cigar and on the mantel sat the ornamental

10 boat oar. Defendant told Owens “I’ve done something I don’t think I can recover from. I
11 spanked some of the kids at the church and may have taken it too far.”

12 Following this incident, word began to get out at the church about what had
13 happened to D.L. and Taylor and Pam, who knew their children had frequently been at

14 the church when D.L. was there, asked them if they had ever seen anything happen to

15 D.L. The children proceeded to tell their parents that they had not only seen D.L. get

16 beaten on many occasions, but that the Defendant had likewise continued to do the same
17 thing to W.W. on many occasions as well – always bare-bottomed while alone with the

18 Defendant. The Welches immediately reported this to the church and the Defendant was

19 once again confronted by the Elders about same and once again, denied paddling W.W.

20 bare-bottomed. Defendant abruptly resigned a few days later and left town. Notably, he

21 wrote an e-mail to the Jolly telling them he was having issues with the Elders but made

22 no mention of it involving accusations of abuse that were identical to those there son had

23 made five years earlier.

24 Within days, the Defendant’s father, Walt Chantry, who was at the time a high-

-9-
1 ranking member of ARBCA, wrote an angry letter to the Elders at Miller Valley,
2 accusing them of treating his son badly. The Elders wrote back telling Walt that what

3 Defendant had done to at least four separate children could be considered abuse and
4 probably should be reported to the police. Thereafter, it was agreed that rather than

5 calling the police, the Elders would request that a three-man counsel from ARBCA come

6 to town to “investigate” the matter. The three-man counsel was carefully selected with

7 Walt Chantry’s direction and included two of his close friends and a third Elder named
8 Ted Tripp who was a well-known author and speaker about the importance of “using the

9 rod” on children - even infants who struggled during a diaper change. Like Defendant’s

10 father, all three were high-ranking members in ARBCA at the time. The church next
11 reached out to the parents of M.J., W.W., J.W. and D.L. and asked them all to write

12 letters detailing what had happened to their children to provide to the 3-man counsel
13 when they arrived. M.J. who was by that time 15-years-old, was also asked to write a

14 letter. While still not disclosing the full extent of the touching, M.J. wrote about the bare-

15 bottomed spankings and how the Defendant would rub his bottom afterwards. He also

16 referred to the Defendant as a sick, twisted monster and revealed how Defendant said he
17 wanted to “see his butt turn red.”

18 The counsel came and interviewed each of the children alone without a parent or

19 anyone else present. After speaking with the children, the counsel told Defendant it

20 would be best that he not say anything further based upon what they learned during their

21 interviews of the children. The counsel then wrote an initial report that stated there were

22 “many things they had not been able to fully explore” but they expressed concerns that

23 the Defendant was punishing children for “his own personal pleasure.” The report also

24 stated that Defendant was disqualified from holding a position as a pastor or elder within

-10-
1 a church or taking any position that involved contact with children. That report infuriated
2 Walt Chantry and it was quickly sealed with a written agreement that it was never to be

3 disclosed unless something else happened in the future.8 A second, much more neutral
4 report was prepared in its place and each of the parents were provided with same and they

5 were all encouraged to choose forgiveness over going to the police.9 The parents were

6 also all assured that Defendant would never be a pastor again. Within less than a year the

7 Defendant would be doing guest sermons in a church in Washington and within two years
8 he would be teaching at a Christian School in Illinois (run by his sister’s husband who

9 was likewise a member of ARBCA). In 2004, the Defendant was investigated by police

10 for spanking a 5-year-old student at the school so hard that there were still visible marks
11 three days later. As he had done on every occasion before, Defendant admitted spanking

12 the child but denied leaving marks. The investigation was quietly dropped after the
13 parents agreed not to press charges. Defendant went on to be ordained as the pastor of a

14 church in Milwaukee a year later.

15 In 2015, 18-year-old J.E. came home from a church camp (where he was a youth

16 leader) and reported to his mother a secret he had been keeping for a very long time – that
17 he had been molested by a pastor in a room at the church when he was three or four years

18 old. Not surprisingly, the church he was attending at that age was MVBC and the

19 Defendant was the pastor.10 Heather Eddolls who had reported the abuse of her nephew

20 D.L. immediately knew who the perpetrator was and immediately notified the pastor at

8
The sealed report was in fact completely unknown to the parents, the Elders or the police until 17 years
later when it was discovered by the prosecutor during a pretrial interview with a defense witness.
9
During the second trial, a letter that had been buried for decades surfaced. It was a letter written by one
or more members of the three-man counsel and stated that they should have contacted the police after
their investigation and had they done so, Defendant likely would still be in prison today.

10
The timing of the incident was determined to likely coincide with the brief period of time that Carolyn
had stopped sending D.L. to tutoring just prior to a report being made to the church

-11-
1 MVBC and this time, the church immediately contacted the police. The church also
2 provided police with the “neutral” report from the 2000 church investigation which

3 named the four other victims. One by one each of these victims, now grown adults living
4 in different states, were contacted by law enforcement and one by one they told their

5 stories of the abuse they had endured at the hands of the Defendant. When M.J. was

6 contacted he had no idea that the police were investigating potential molest allegations,

7 nor was he asked if he was molested, yet he immediately disclosed that he had been both
8 physically and sexually abused by the Defendant (something he had never told anyone

9 about except for his wife).

10 During the first trial, the Defendant was convicted for aggravated assault of J.W.
11 and W.W. He was acquitted on the molest allegation of J.E. (though some jurors would

12 later report that they believed Defendant had in fact committed the offense but used that
13 weaker count as bargaining leverage with the one hold-out juror in hopes he would agree

14 to vote guilty on the counts involving M.J. and were unaware they could change their

15 minds after having voted). When the lone hold-out juror refused to budge on the

16 molestation charges involving M.J. the jury hung 11-1. Following trial several jurors
17 spoke to both attorneys and flatly stated that someone needed to look into the holdout

18 juror because he appeared to have an agenda and they believed he had not been honest

19 during voir dire. Another juror wrote the prosecutor stating that the Defendant would

20 have been found guilty on all counts but for the holdout juror. An investigation was

21 subsequently undertaken wherein all jurors were interviewed, including the hold-out juror

22 who subsequently admitted that he had lied about many things during voir dire, most

23 notably his criminal history which included many arrests and one in particular where he

24 had sent videos of himself masturbating to a female co-worker. That juror later pled

-12-
1 guilty to felony perjury. In a second retrial the Defendant was subsequently convicted of
2 all counts of molestation of M.J.

3 LAW
4 ARS 13-3961 as amended in 2018 provides that persons at least 18 years of age

5 who are charged with Molestation of a Child under 13 years of age shall be non-bondable

6 without any further requirement of showing dangerousness or exploring less onerous

7 release conditions. However, because neither Rule 7.2 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal
8 Procedure or Article II, Section 22 of the Arizona Constitution have yet been amended to

9 conform to the Statute, the State will be addressing all three factors when arguing for this

10 Court to find the Defendant non-bondable. Specifically, based upon the detailed and
11 lengthy recitation of the facts above the State is requesting this Court to find proof

12 evident presumption great that the Defendant committed the charged offenses; that he
13 poses a danger to the community if released, especially to children; that having been

14 previously convicted of the offenses (and narrowly avoiding a conviction at the first trial)

15 Defendant poses a flight risk and that no release conditions can reasonably ensure the

16 Defendant’s appearance at trial and more importantly ensure the safety of the community
17 and young children.

18 Rule 7.2 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure in pertinent part provides that

19 the court may not release any defendant charged with a felony if the court finds all of the

20 following:

21 (A) the proof is evident or the presumption great that the defendant committed one or
22 more of the charged felony offenses;

23 (B) clear and convincing evidence that the defendant poses a substantial danger to the
24 victim, any other person, or the community or, on certification by motion of the state, the
25 defendant engaged in conduct constituting a dangerous crime against children or
26 terrorism; and

-13-
1 (C) no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety
2 of the victim, any other person, or the community.
3
4 Because there have been two prior findings of proof evident and presumption great

5 by the former trial judge and a unanimous finding of guilt by the jury in the second trial,

6 the State would submit there can be no question that there is proof evident and

7 presumption great that the Defendant committed the offenses for which he is charged.

8 Likewise, dangerousness has been established by the fact that the defendant engaged in

9 conduct constituting a dangerous crime against children and the State so certifies.

10 In determining the final factor of whether there are no condition or combination of

11 conditions of release conditions that will reasonably assure the safety of the victim, any

12 other person or the community, the Rule sets forth several factors which the Court should

13 consider. The State will address each of these factors as they apply to the facts in this

14 case individually below.

15 (A) The nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense
16 is a “dangerous offense” as defined in A.R.S. § 13-105
17
18 The Defendant used his sacred position of trust to physically and sexually abuse

19 an 11-year-old child repeatedly. He carefully and cleverly cultivated a relationship with

20 the victim’s parents (again using his position as their pastor) in order to gain unfettered

21 access to their child. When the young boy tried to report the bizarre physical abuse, the

22 Defendant clearly lied to the Elders and the child’s parents about same and then

23 maneuvered his way back into their lives in a clear attempt to silence the victim from

24 further disclosure. The victim in this case has suffered extensively for decades due to

25 the Defendant’s abuse. In addition to the tremendous confusion, guilt, shame and fear

-14-
1 that he felt as a child when being abused by the Defendant, M.J. lost his faith in the

2 church and his relationship with his parents and older brother has suffered greatly over

3 the years due to his understandable feelings that they failed to protect him despite his

4 cries for help.

5
6 (B) The weight of the evidence against the defendant
7
8 The evidence in this case is overwhelming as is evidenced by the prior findings of now

9 two juries.

10 (C) The history and characteristics of the defendant, including the defendant's
11 character, physical and mental condition, past conduct including membership in a
12 criminal street gang, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, and criminal history;
13
14 The State presented extensive detailed facts about the history and

15 characteristics of the defendant, his character and past conduct. From those facts, the

16 Court can clearly see that this Defendant used his position as a pastor to abuse several

17 young innocent children during his five-year tenure at Miller Valley Baptist Church. In

18 each instance he preyed upon vulnerable children entrusted to his care and then

19 outright lied to cover up his conduct when confronted. It is important for this Court to

20 know that none of the victims had contact outside an occasional church gathering (and

21 M.J. had no contact with any of the other victims after moving to Gilbert) and none knew

22 of the other’s abuse until the Defendant was arrested some 16 years later and the facts

23 came out in court. Thus, it is impossible for these victims to have come up with identical

24 accounts of the abuse and the vile threats of the Defendant that God would punish them

25 if they disclosed same.

26

-15-
1 (D) The nature and seriousness of the danger to the victim, any other person, or the
2 community that would be posed by releasing the defendant on bail, including any threat
3 to a victim or other participants in the judicial process.
4
5 The State would submit that one of the most critical things the above facts

6 establish is that even after being caught and narrowly escaping punishment or arrest on

7 several occasions, the Defendant continued to victimize children. After getting away

8 with his abuse of M.J., the Defendant went on to abuse D.L. for several years. After

9 being confronted about spanking W.W. and J.W. the first time and promising not to do it

10 again, the Defendant went on to continuously abuse W.W. for months thereafter. After

11 D.L.’s mother stopped taking D.L. to tutoring (after seeing the horrific bruises but before

12 reporting them to the church) the Defendant had no access to a child he was “tutoring”

13 and proceeded to molest a much younger and more vulnerable (and presumably less

14 communicative) child in an opportune moment within the church. Finally, after the formal

15 “investigation” by ARBCA and having narrowly escaped arrest, largely due to his

16 father’s power and influence within the church, within two years the Defendant spanked

17 another 5-year-old child hard enough to leave marks three days later. It should be also

18 be noted that at the end of that “investigation,” Defendant signed an agreement that he

19 would not have any unsupervised contact with children and would never spank any child

20 again but this clearly did not stop him.

21 The fact that the Defendant continued to brazenly abuse children time and again

22 despite the close-calls is a clear sign he is a pedophile. Additionally, the Defendant’s

23 use of his power as a pastor and the fear of God to terrorize children from speaking of

24 the abuse, is clear evidence of Defendant’s cunning and clever ability to silence his

25 victims which may well account for the lack of additional reports in the intervening years.

-16-
1 These tactics clearly worked with the victims in the instant case for over 15 years so

2 one should not assume it has not worked with others since then. And finally, the

3 manner of abuse the Defendant inflicted on the children consistently grew more brazen,

4 more risky and more serious. Defendant continued to abuse W.W. even after the boy

5 had spoke of the first spanking. Defendant severely beat D.L. to the point of leaving

6 horrific bruises. Defendant preyed upon a much younger and presumably less

7 communicative toddler when he suddenly found himself without a child to “tutor” and

8 abuse. The State would submit the facts in this case relating to the Defendant’s

9 conduct and character overwhelmingly establish that he cannot be trusted and no

10 release conditions will ensure the safety of children in the community should he be

11 released. The State would also note that the Defendant still has two young sons living

12 at home.

13 (E) The recommendation of the pretrial services program based on an appropriate risk
14 assessment instrument.
15
16 Not applicable at this time.
17
18 (F) any victim statement about the offense and release on bail.
19
20 The victim and his family have always steadfastly requested that the Defendant remain
21
22 in custody.
23
24 (G) Any other factor relevant to the determination required under (b)(2)(B) and (b)(2)(C).

25 For over two decades, defendants charged with Molestation of a Child and/or

26 Sexual Conduct of a Minor were required to be held without bond based solely upon a

27 finding of proof evident or presumption great that the Defendant committed the charged

28 offenses, without any additional requirement that the State prove dangerousness or

-17-
1 address less onerous release conditions. This was because the Arizona voters and State

2 Legislature deemed these crimes to be so inherently dangerous that no release conditions

3 could adequately protect against the risk that another child might be victimized. This led

4 to the inclusion of Article 2, Section 22(A)(1) and the enactment of ARS 13-3961. And

5 for the next two decades Arizona Courts consistently upheld those provisions. In the

6 years leading up to 2015/2016 however, the statutory and constitutional provisions were

7 regrettably used in a handful of cases involving teenagers engaging in “consensual sex”.

8 The Arizona Supreme Court rightfully recognized that these were not the types of

9 offenses that were contemplated under either the Constitution or ARS 13-3961 because

10 such offenses were not inherently dangerous. Thereafter, in a series of published

11 opinions (Simpson I, Simpson II and Chantry) the Court deemed both the statutory and

12 constitutional provisions unconstitutional because they could sweep in “situations where

13 teenagers engage in consensual sex.” Simpson v. Miller, 244 Ariz. 22, 417 P.3d 787

14 (2017). The Court however went on to specifically state that it did not intend to hold that

15 “all statutory bail schemes must include an individualized inquiry into a defendant’s

16 dangerousness in order to pass constitutional muster” but noted that “if the State chooses

17 not to provide such determinations, its procedure would have to serve as a convincing

18 proxy for unmanageable flight risk or dangerousness. Id at 25. As noted above, ARS 13-

19 3961 was subsequently amended to eliminate the Court’s concerns, however, the

20 corresponding Constitutional provision and Rule 7.2 have yet to be amended to conform

21 with same. The underlying reasons for the statute remain the same: Pedophiles are

22 extremely dangerous and rarely stop offending. The risk that even one child could be

-18-
1 sexually victimized is too great a chance to take.

2 The State would respectfully submit that the Defendant’s conduct in this case

3 alone is sufficient to serve as a “convincing proxy” for future dangerousness and that his

4 conduct taken as a whole clearly satisfies that no release conditions will ensure the safety

5 of the community and its children.

6 For all the foregoing reasons, the State respectfully requests this Court to find that

7 the State has met its burden under Rule 7.4 and hold the Defendant without bond pending

8 trial.

9 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 23rd day of February, 2022.

Sheila Polk
Yavapai County Attorney

By: _____________________________
Susan L. Eazer
Deputy County Attorney

COPY of the foregoing

☐mailed ☒emailed ☐hand-delivered
This 22nd day of February, 2022 to:

Hon. Krista M. Carman

Yavapai County Superior Court Division 4

Ryan J. Stevens
Attorney for Defendant
By: SLE/ap

-19-