Judge delays decision after preliminary hearing in Moberly teen’s death
HUNTSVILLE, Mo. (KMIZ)
A detective testified about the role a man accused of evidence tampering played in the events that led to a Randolph County teenager's death during the suspect's preliminary hearing Friday.
Judge Mason Gehardt said Friday that he would consider binding Julian Mason over for trial after Mason's preliminary hearing. His next court appearance is set for 9 a.m. Sept. 23.
Mason is one of the co-defendants facing charges for being a part of the murder of a Moberly girl, Kayla Huff, 16, who was killed in May.
Mason is charged with first-degree kidnapping, felony evidence tampering, second-degree burglary and first-degree property damage.
Prosecuting Attorney Stephanie Luntsford called Randolph County Sheriff's Office Lt. Nathan West to the stand, who testified about the timeline of his investigation.
West testified that through cellphone records of a codefendant's phone, Mason was tracked driving to Huff's residence, where what the codefendants believed to be motor oil at the time was poured into Huff's car, later disabling it. According to West, Mason was responsible for holding the funnel in the gas tank so the substance could be poured into the car.
West also testified that Mason and another codefendant were responsible for hiding the baton used to assault Huff.
After investigaors did not take the baton into evidence, Mason and Hunter Ames drove the baton near County Line Road and hid it, according to West, creating grounds for the tampering with evidence charge.
During cross-examination, Mason's defense attorney, John Barron, argued for dismissal of some charges.
The defense argued that the prosecutors presented no evidence showing Mason physically removed Huff, so the kidnapping charge should be dropped. Barron asked West if there was any evidence of Mason doing so, and West said no.
Gehardt responded to the defense's arguments by saying that "nobody jumps into a trunk voluntarily." The prosecution argued that Mason acted as an accomplice.
The defense also argued that Mason did not physically enter the victim's vehicle, and that tampering with the outside of the car, the gas tank, held no grounds for a burglary charge.
The prosecution said that, according to the burglary statute, Mason did enter into the gas tank to pour the substance in. The prosecution stated that entering a vehicle's body is not required, but because Mason inserted the funnel, it satisfies the charge, and pouring the substance into the tank was sufficient to support the property damage charge.
The judge made no rulings Friday, taking the arguments under consideration before scheduling the Sept. 23 court date.
