The jury returned with its verdict just before 8 p.m. Friday after a long day of testimony and argument. Ultimately, the jury sided with the prosecution’s contention that Waddle “had the opportunity to beat, had the motive to beat, to maim, to mutilate Noodles the dog,” in the words of Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Todd Shockley.
Noodles, a 2-year-old female hound, belonged to Kimberly Hunt and her child, residents of 1601 Fenton Street in South Boston.
After breaking off a relationship with Waddle earlier in the day on Oct. 26, 2013, Hunt went to Danville that night.
When she returned home around 10 p.m., she went down to the basement, where she had boarded Noodles for the day, and found a gruesome scene: the animal had been beaten nearly to death, its skull bashed in, one of its eyes dislocated from the socket.
After surviving through the night, Noodles was put down by Halifax veterinarian Chris Halsey the next morning.
Waddle, 35, was arrested one day later and charged with breaking into the home; he was subsequently charged with the attack on Noodles.
The jury Friday convicted Waddle on three counts: felony animal cruelty, statutory burglary and interfering with the property rights of the victim, Hunt. Upon hearing the verdict, Waddle, accompanied by his lawyer, Glenn Berger of Altavista, reacted impassively, at times lifting his head to stare at the ceiling.
DISGUSTING ODIOUS PEOPLE ON THE JURY
Facing up to 25 years in prison, Waddle did not have to wait long for the jury to return to chambers and come up with his punishment. The jury’s recommendation: no jail time for Waddle, but fines of $2,500 for each offense, for a total fine of $7,500.
Circuit Judge Joel Cunningham, who presided over the case, is expected to set a final punishment for Waddle at an October sentencing hearing. The judge does not have the option to impose prison time but can order probation and other sanctions for Waddle, said Deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney Will Hamilton.
Shockley, who prosecuted the case, built a convincing account for jurors based on two main pillars of evidence: one, a neighbor’s testimony of having seen Waddle enter the basement of the Fenton Street rental home around 5:40 p.m. on the day Noodles was beaten, and two, dozens of text messages that Waddle sent to Hunt after the incident, pleading with her not to go police.
Three times, Waddle offered to pay her $1,000 “if the matter would go away,” said Shockley.
In the messages, Waddle acknowledged entering the unlocked basement where Noodles was being kept, but he said he only went there to retrieve personal items from the home, including clothing and a DeWalt tools drill box kept in the basement. He denied harming Noodles in the text messages, which took on an increasingly frustrated tone. One text included a derogatory description of Hunt, apparently spurred by her unwillingness to let the matter drop.
The implications of Waddle’s decision to enter the basement was a key point of contention during the trial, with Berger, Waddle’s lawyer, arguing “there is no evidence of larceny” from the defendant retrieving something that belonged to him.
“You don’t always [get] all your clothes when you move from one place to another,” he said.
Berger stressed that Hunt had broken up with Waddle that same day, leaving his client in a lurch — and hoping to see her again in the hope of salvaging the relationship. “This is a person who spent the night [at Hunt’s] the night before,” he said.
During cross-examination, Berger further coaxed an admission out of Hunt that Waddle had not been abusive to her personally, nor had she ever seen him harm Noodles.
Hunt, however, testified that she had decided to break off the relationship after the couple got into an argument in early October. On the day she demanded her house key back, Waddle became visibly upset. She described his anger as “a quick outburst.”
Shockley said Hunt’s request for the house key sent a clear signal that Waddle no longer had permission to enter the home, buttressing the charge of burglary. “He knew he was not supposed to come back,” he said.
Hunt’s Fenton Street neighbor testified previously in the trial that she saw Waddle enter the basement and re-emerge about 10 to 15 minutes later, carrying the tool box. He had entered the home empty-handed.
Upon arresting Waddle, police seized the tool box and searched his vehicle and other places to look for blood evidence that would link the suspect to Noodles’ death, but they did not find any tangible evidence to bring to trial. Berger argued “that one factor alone” should be enough to acquit Waddle, but Shockley scorned that notion, observing that Waddle had been arrested days after the fatal beating and had ample time to clean up any signs of blood.
“If you spilled ketchup down your shirt, would you walk around with it for two days?” Shockley said.
Berger floated the theory that a prior boyfriend of Hunt’s may have attacked Noodles and told jurors that “it is not okay to speculate, it is not okay to presume, it is not okay to assume” that Waddle was the only person who could have inflicted the beating based on the evidence that the Commonwealth presented.
“They’re asking you to assume that because he went over there at 5:40, he beat this dog. There’s not evidence for that,” he said. Instead, Berger suggested, Waddle drove over to the house in broad daylight, without wearing clothing that would have concealed his identity, and entered the basement where his tool box had been stored — and that’s all. “He went over there and walked out with his DeWalt case,” said Berger.
“The evidence in this case is bare bones circumstantial evidence. The only evidence they have is that he went over there and something happened that day.”
Shockley reminded jurors, however, that circumstantial evidence can be enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and pointed to what he said was an abundance of evidence — witness testimony, Waddle’s own text messages, the known fact that Waddle had been in the basement where Noodles was penned up — to prove that the defendant was the one who bludgeoned the dog.
“There is no doubt that his right to be on that land had been revoked,” said Shockley. “He was there with only one thing on his mind” — revenge. Shockley continued: “He went into that basement to make it known that no one dumps Michael Waddle. He was there to beat Noodles the dog.”
The evidence shows Waddle “was the only person seen going into the basement, the only person who came out of the basement. You may infer from that that he had the opportunity to beat, to maim, to mutilate Noodles the dog.”
Referring to Waddle’s text messages denying that he had harmed Noodles, Shockley offered a sarcastic interpretation: “I haven’t hurt your dog. Make this go away. I didn’t break into your house. I’ll pay you today.”
Noodles, Shockley added, “had been part of the family.”
After receiving their instructions, the jury retired shortly after 5 p.m. and came back with its verdict just before 8 p.m. Turning immediately to the sentencing portion of the trial, the seven-woman, five-man panel heard from a lone witness, Waddle’s father, William Waddle, who described the defendant as “a very good son.” Waddle, who lives with his parents outside of South Boston, is a driver for a local trucking firm.
As the elder Waddle offered his brief testimony, the courtroom filled with music and booming noises from a Friday night movie-on-the-lawn event at the Courthouse Square, part of the weekend Wild Blue River Festival in Halifax. A visibly perturbed Judge Cunningham paused to ask the jury, “Is that music bothering y’all too much?” The jurors signaled their answer: no.
Weighing in on the punishment for Waddle, Berger made apparent reference to the length of time it took the jury to arrive at a verdict, suggesting “that your finding in this case is indicative that [Waddle] was overcome with emotion …. This is not a cold, calculated individual, but someone who on that day had his heart broken.
“Justice should be tempered with mercy,” he said.
Shockley made note of the defendant’s previous criminal history — Waddle was convicted on charges of brandishing a firearm in 2006 — and told jurors it was up to them “speak for Noodles":
“I suggest you consider a year for every hour she sat in that basement, blind and alone,” he said.
The maximum sentence for felony animal abuse is five years, while the maximum for burglary is 20 years.
Instead, the jury opted to impose misdemeanor punishments on all three charges, with fines instead of prison time.
This jury can rot in hell.
(SoVaNow - September 15, 2014)
Earlier:
