Charges reduced in case connected with July 4 Schell City fire

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Nevada Daily Mail

Charles E. Stewart, 19, of Schell City, appeared in the Circuit Court of Vernon County on Tuesday, Feb. 2, and was assigned a trial date in connection with three misdemeanor counts of reckless burning in relation to two separate incidents in Schell City during the summer of 2009.

Court documents alleged that on or about June 20, 2009, Stewart, knowingly damaged a structure located at Third and Maple Street in Schell City by starting a fire. The original class D felony complaint filed in the June 20 incident has been amended to a class A misdemeanor charge of reckless burning, according to prosecutor Lynn M. Ewing III.

Stewart is also charged with two class A misdemeanor counts of reckless burning in connection with another incident alleged to have taken place on or about July 4, 2009. Count I alleges that Stewart "knowingly damaged an inhabitable structure consisting of a house... located at Second Street east of Maple Street in Schell City and defendant did so by starting a fire," Count II claims that, "the defendant knowingly damaged a building consisting of a church storage building owned by the Schell City Methodist Church and located at Second Street east of Maple Street in Schell City, and defendant did so by starting a fire."

Stewart has entered a "not guilty" plea to all charges and a trial date of June 10 has been set in the Circuit Court of Vernon County. The case may not make it to trial, however, because according to the defendant's attorney Eric Landoll, "we're still in the process of plea negotiations."

Comments

View 12 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Chief Dale Haddix-RIP

-- Posted by redbullard on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 12:19 AM
I would like to know why the charges are being reduced. Let alone all of the things that are tied in to this arson is arson.

-- Posted by sheldon70 on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 4:56 PM
There shouldn't any plea at except by him in the pin. Arson is a felony and should not be reduced for any reason.

What waste of tax payer money on this kid. He done it and should do time for his crimes.

I'd volenteer for this trial as jury member. and do it for free.

-- Posted by Darren on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 11:39 PM
to be safe we need to lock him up. Doesn't matter if he did it or not. Lock him up that way we don't take a chance. I say do away with trials. They take up to much time and money. I say if your charged with a crime you get locked up. Doesn't matter if you did it or not. If you didn't do what your charged with you probably did something else you should go to jail for. Better to lock up a few people that didn't do anything than to take a chance that someone who is guilty walks free. While im on the subject, time to throw out the constitution. Thing is outdated and of no use anymore. Time to lock them all up. Course I may sing a different tune if they ever come to lock me up. Something to think about. Just my thoughts from stupidville.

-- Posted by truthseeker67 on Sat, Feb 6, 2010, at 2:38 AM
truthseeker67, Did I really just read that? On another post you were standing on your constutional rights to freedom of speech, but when it comes to this you are ready to throw it out????? The constitution was created for all to be treated fair and equal. And when it serves your purpose you hold it up high and proud. But when it comes to the justice system, we should forget it exists???? It is a good thing we dont lock people up and throw away the keys for stuff like that. WOW I am at a loss.

-- Posted by Commguy on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 10:47 AM
Sorry commguy, one of the hardest things to show in a comment is sarcassam (sp) I was replying to Darrens comment that he felt the poor kid should go to jail for his crimes. The poor kid hasn't even had a trial yet and they want to lock him up. Reread my comment as if i was say with sarcasam "What the heck just toss it all out" Let me say now that I am a firm believer in the constitution. I swore an oath once to defend it from all enamies forgien and domestic. I will also die defending a persons right to say what he wants even if I don't agree with it. I will also defend the boys right to be innocent until proven guilty. The state has to prove he did it, He doesn't have to prove he didn't. I believe what I think Jefferson said "When we are willing to give up some freedom for security then we deserve neither" To that end when we are willing to lock up they boy before he has his day in court then when it comes to us we should be locked up before we have our say. If he did the crime or not he deserves the right to be heard. But back to the beginning for the record I don't really believe what I wrote in my comment on the 6th. Just my thought from stupidville

-- Posted by truthseeker67 on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 8:16 PM
My argument would not be if this young man is guilty or innocent it would be why are the charges being reduced. If all these fires have been tied together to one person, and I am not saying they have the correct person, why would the charges be reduced. One of these fires also caused the death of Chief Dale Haddix. If this is correct, it would be my opinion that, if anything, the charges should be increased rather than decreased. Once again, there has to be more to this than is able to be reported at this time.

-- Posted by ccmom on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 8:15 AM
Truth seeker, As few do on her I will apologize for jumping to conclusions, after rereading the posts I missed the apparent sarcasm in your post. Thanks for pointing it out to me.

-- Posted by Commguy on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 5:25 PM
commguy, no trouble. It is hard to show sarcasm. :) ccmom, I too wondered why the charges were dropped. Maybe Mr Ewing felt he can't prove arson with intent. As far a Dale goes let me be the first to say he was a great man. I have a lot of respect for him. After all he was a fellow Navy man. However, with his health he shouldn't have been at the fires in the first place. I don't think who ever set the fires expected that Dale would have a heart attack. That doesn't in anyway lessen what the person did. I'm just saying Dale wasn't actually hands on the hose that night and he could have just as easily had the attack in his sleep. Any way you look at it, it was a sad night. I don't think I would charger a person with his death. To be honest i'm split on it. On the one hand Dale was a very good friend of mine but on the other hand I don't think the person who set the fires ever expected Dale's death to be a result. I don't see any winners in this. I do see a good place to teach your kids that you never know what can result from your actions.

-- Posted by truthseeker67 on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 9:58 PM
Well said.

-- Posted by ccmom on Fri, Feb 12, 2010, at 8:27 AM
The newspaper don't always report everything, I heard that he had already admitted to setting both of the fires. And which one a death accured. So there should no decrease in charges for any reason.

You start a fire and someone elses property is damaged, you are responsible. That is the law here in our state. So you all are saying that they cant tie him to the death of a fire fighter, who ever set a arson fire is resposible for any and all damages.

If he don't go to jail for the crimes he comitted, why did we pass the tax for a new jail.

Oh forgot it all depends on who ya know in this county. There is some sarcasam for you all.

-- Posted by Darren on Mon, Feb 15, 2010, at 10:29 PM
See now there you go with half truths. The word is he only admitted that earlier in the day he had talked about setting fire to the place. He never admitted that he actually went through with it. Also if I was 19 and the police were telling me I would never go home again or see my parents unless I admitted something. After 3 days I probably admit that I started the gulf war if I thought I would get to go home. I don't take much heed in what a person says under duress (sp)

-- Posted by truthseeker67 on Wed, Feb 17, 2010, at 8:42 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register