Judge denies motion to dismiss Bennett murder charge

EPHRATA — A Grant County Superior Court judge denied a motion to dismiss a murder charge against an Ephrata man.

Grant County Superior Court Judge David Estudillo denied the motion that was filed by defense attorney David Bustamante, who is representing murder suspect Chad Bennett, 26, of Ephrata.

Bennett was charged after Lucille Moore, 82, of Ephrata, was found murdered in her Ephrata home on Sept. 8, 2014, with her cause of death determined to be sharp wounds to the neck and chest. Bennett was arrested by police on Nov. 25, 2014 and subsequently charged with the murder of his landlord, with prosecutors stating Bennett’s DNA was found at the scene of the crime and alleging he killed Moore because of an impending eviction.

Bustamante’s motion submitted to the court stated that his client’s DNA was not found on Moore’s body, or any suspected murder weapons. He said Bennett’s DNA “material” was found in three places at the scene.

Bennett’s DNA was reportedly located on a cigarette butt found on the living room carpet inside Moore’s house. Bustamante stated there was no burn marks, ashes, fallen out tobacco leaves, or other evidence discovered to prove the cigarette was smoked inside the house. Bennett allegedly stated the cigarette “must have” fallen out of his pocket when he was at the house to pay rent.

The second piece of DNA was found on a pillow covering Moore’s face. Bennett’s DNA found was located on the pillow along with the DNA of two other individuals. The third piece of DNA was reportedly in a blood pattern found on a wall. The blood pattern, described as a “swipe” by Bustamante, was created when something rubbed along a previously existing blood pattern “causing a new ‘swiping’ pattern to be superimposed over the original blood stain,” according to Bustamante. The blood stain reportedly contained a mixture of both Moore’s and Bennett’s DNA.

Deputy Prosecutor Edward Owens said that case law states the court must look at the state’s case in the most favorable light to the state. He stated experts will testify that the DNA evidence found on the wall will show that Bennett was present at the scene of the crime.

“I think taking just that evidence alone is a light most favorable to the state,” Owens said.

Bustamante’s motion states that from the gathered evidence the crime lab submitted a report concluding Bennett was “likely” with Moore because the blood swipe contained both his and Moore’s DNA, Bennett was in contact with the pillow that was placed over Moore’s face and Bennett “likely” left a partially burned cigarette butt in the living room.

The motion further states Bennett’s vehicle was searched by police and no evidence was found to connect Bennett to the crime. In addition, Bustamante pointed out that police collected the shirt and shoes Bennett was wearing on the day of the murder, which reportedly did not contain traces of Moore’s blood or DNA.

Bennett called Moore on Sept. 5 and 7 and reportedly went to her home three separate times on Sept. 7 to pay his rent, pay a remaining balance on a deposit and to pick up his wallet, which he accidentally left at Moore’s house. Bennett allegedly told a detective there was nothing unusual about the three visits and said Moore was still alive when he last contacted her.

Bustamante states the gathered evidence does show Bennett was at Moore’s house, but he asserted the evidence does not show his client killed the woman.

“The best the state can show is that he (Bennett) was present at the place where she (Moore) was murdered,” Bustamante said on Monday. “They cannot prove that he in anyway participated in the crime or that he aided or abetted in or assisted in anyway. Therefore under the case law that I cited I believe the court must dismiss as a matter of law for insufficiency of the evidence.”

Owens said Bustamante's argument was similar to the argument he made when representing a Desert Aire man who was recently found guilty of murder by a jury.

“This a very similar argument that the defense is making in regards to the last homicide case that the state just tried. Where they argued that just because his DNA is there, it doesn’t mean he did it,” Owens stated.

Bustamante stated that case law is “very clear” that mere presence is not enough to convict a person of criminal culpability. Estudillo ruled in favor of the state and denied the motion to dismiss the murder charge.

Richard Byrd can be reached via email at city@columbiabasinherald.com.