FILED INTHE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS |COMMON PLEAS COURT PIKE COUNTY, OHIO FEB 29 2001 JUSTIN P. BREWSTER ae eae ; PIKE COUNTY CLERK Plaintiff, + Case No, 2018CROOOI55 -vs- GEORGE WASHINGTON WAGNER, IV : JUDGE RANDY D. DEERING Defendant. NOTICE OF INTENT TO USE OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 404(B) Pursuant to Evidence Rule 404(B), the State hereby gives notice of its intent to use other acts nce Rule 404(B), specifically for the allowable purposes, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, evidence based on the permissible uses as outlined in Evi knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Pursuant to Evidence Rule 404(B), the State is providing notice of the “general nature” of the other acts evidence intended to be introduced at trial. The following is not necessarily an exhaustive list, but provides the requisite “general nature” description, pursuant to Evidence Rule 404(B). The State notes that all of the following is contained within the discovery that has already beon provided to opposing counsel in the State’s multiple discovery productions provided between the dates of December 20, 2018 through August 21, 2020, ‘The following other acts evidence as it pertains to the Defendant's and/or Defendant's brother/co-Defendant’s relationship with Hanna Rhoden, including, but not limited to the following: 1) Edward Jacob Wagner’s violence/domestic violence relationship toward/with Hanna Rhoden, including but not limited to assaulting her, controlling her, chasing her, strangling her, and threatening her. 2) Edward Jacob Wagner's threats to Hanna Rhoden, including, but not limited to, threatening. to kill her and put her body where it would never be found. 3) Edward Jacob Wagner’s controlling nature toward Hanna Rhoden, including, but not limited to, dictating every aspect in regard to their shared child, 8.W., starting when Hanna Rhoden was pregnant, and continuing up until shortly before Hanna Rhoden’s death. : i4) Edward Jacob Wagner’s controlling nature toward Hanna Rhoden regarding her second child, K.R,, including but not limited to, telling her not to disclose to the child’s actual father that it was his child, offering to give her money to put his name on the birth certificate, trying to convince her to move to Alaska with him and his family, and suggesting they raise the child alongside their shared child as if the child was the Defendant's. 5) Defendant’s and his co-Defendant’s controlling nature toward Hanna Rhoden by trying to limit her access to her own family during the time periods when Hanna Rhoden resided with the Defendant and his family. 6) Edward Jacob Wagner’s obsession with Hanna Rhoden, wanting to get back with her and being jealous of her relationships with other males. 7) Edward Jacob Wagner’s attempts to get Hanna Rhoden to agree to shared custody of their shared child, $.W., even after Hanna Rhoden had made it clear that she would never agree to that. 8) Defendant and his co-Defendants spying on Hanna Rhoden, including but not limited to surreptitiously monitoring her social media, and attempts to have others “spy” on Hanna Rhoden whenever their shared child was with Hanna Rhoden, and report back to Edward Jacob Wagner, and Edward Jacob Wagner’s surreptitious recordings of his interactions with Hanna Rhoden at her two different residences in the months immediately prior to the homicides. 9) Defendant and his family/co-Defendants wanting Angela Wagner to raise 8.W. and wanting $.W. to consider Angela Wagner her mother. ‘The following other acts evidence as it relates to Tabitha Claytor, including, but not limited to the following: 1) Defendant and his family’s control of and accusations of Tabitha Claytor during the time she resided with the Defendant and his family, to include shortly after she fled the residence. 2) Defendant and his family’s complete control of the shared child that Tabitha Claytor and Defendant had during their marriage, up to and including getting Tabitha Claytor to sign away almost all of her custody rights under false pretenses, and then not permitting hee their shared child, except in rare instances, and only then, not ues cag @SRUPEEAS couRT Defendant and/or his family members was present, FEB 22 2021 Pp. BREWSTER JUSTIN NITY CLERI |_bixe coun3) Defendant and his family (co-Defendants) preventing Tabitha Claytor from contacting her family during the time that she resided with the Defendant and his family. 4) Defendant and his family threatening to shoot Tabitha Claytor on the last night she resided with them, before fleeing for her life, never to return to the residence. 5) Defendant and co-Defendants having Tabitha’s child refer to and consider Angela Wagner as his mother. 6) Defendant and co-Defendants spying on Tabitha through surreptitious means, including but not limited to surreptitiously accessing Tabitha’s and her mother’s social media accounts, and having others “spy” on her end report back to them, 7) Defendant and co-Defendants taking actions to prevent Tabitha from being able to regain custody of Tabitha’s child including but not limited to trying to keep the child from her for ‘more than a year, so they could claim “abandonment” as a court strategy. The following other acts evidence as it relates to Elizabeth Wagner, including but not limited to the following: 1) Defendant and his family (co-Defendants) controlling every movement of Elizabeth Wagner, including but not limited to demanding all of her personal identifying information, her passwords, etc., and downloading tracking applications on at least one of her devices. 2) Defendant’s and his family’s (co-Defendants) accusations of Elizabeth and threatening her with bodily harm and/or death during the time she resided with the Defendant and his family. 3) Defendant and his co-Defendants isolating Elizabeth Wagner from her family during the time she resided with them, at one point threatening to kill her family if they came around. 4) Defendant becoming upset when Defendant’s child, S.W., started referring to Blizabeth Wagner as “Mom”. 5) Defendant and his co-Defendants “spying” on Elizabeth Wagner, including but not limited to going through her personal items, monitoring her social media, and contacting a private investigator to “investigate” her. FILED COMMON PLEAS COURT FEB 22 2021 JUSTIN P. BREWSTER PIKE COUNTY CLERIThe following other acts evidence, in addition to acts already charged and/or alleged in the indictment, as it relates to the criminal enterprise that the Defendant and his family/co- Defendants make up, including, but not limited to the following: 1) Multiple instances of arson of various properties of their own for financial gain. 2) Multiple instances of theft by Defendant and his family (gas, tractor trailers, shoplifting, etc.) 3) Instance of Defendant's father threatening Defendant's mother with a gun. 4) Allegations that Defendant's father has killed/plotted/threatened to kill others before. 5) Defendant’s family’s involvement in transporting drugs/engaging in drug trafficking. 6) Trying to obtain a mortgage by committing fraud. 7) Defendant’s father/co-Defendant threatening Christopher Rhoden, Sr. with a gun within a week of the homicides. 8) Having others commit crimes to cover up their crimes, including but not limited to perjury/obstruction of justice. 9) Asking and/or ordering potential witnesses against them not to speak to investigators and/or not appear pursuant to subpoena, and/or hiring attorneys for witnesses and accompanying them to their attorneys’ offices, and continuing to do these things even after their arrest via phone calls and contacts by their respective attorneys; coordinating and/or planning their responses/testimony to public officials and/or the grand jury and/or at trial, despite non- disclosure orders, of which they were each informed. 10) Making threats to/about BCI agents and/or other law enforcement and government officials, 11) Making a plan that if not all of them were arrested, how the ones who were not arrested would break the others out of jail. 12) Defendant and his co-Defendants functioning as one unit at all times, demonstrated by factors including but not limited to the following: residing together in a very insular manner their entire lives, even while married as adults; being home-schooled; working together at all times, including but not limited to Defendant and his brother/co-Defendant tandem driving at the time of their arrests; family meetings/voting on all affairs, including the personal/private lives of Defendant’s and his brother/co-Defendant’s and their respective children and wives; shared financial resources/accounts that were used and accessed by Defer his co-Defendants, FEB 22 2021 IsTIN P. BREWST ER € COUNTY CLERK JUS13) Engaging in counter-surveillance techniques to thwart the ability of law enforcement from investigating and/or detecting them as the perpetrators of these crimes before, during and after the homicides, and especially once they knew they were the focus of the investigation. Respectfully submitted, ROB JUNK (0056250) Prosecuting Attorney Pike County, Ohio 100 East Second Street Waverly, OH 45690 (740) 947-4323 (740) 947-7617 FAX RobJunk@pikecounty.ch.gov Db Carga _/iny ‘ANGELA CANBPA (0052054) Special Prosecuting Attomey Fond Wake /y Mh D. ANDREW WILSON (007376: Special Prosecuting Attorney CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was emailed to John P. Parker and Richard M. ‘Nash, Jr, Attormeys for Defendant, on February 22, 2021. Ras Ayal Ona Canepa 0052054 vai PLEAS COURT Special Assistant Prosecutit CQNMey FEB 22 2021 JusTINE BREWSTER |_PIKE CO!