Motion targets Hagler, again
For the second time in as many months, Carroll County prosecutors are asking a special judge presiding over the case of Neal Hagler to revoke his release on bond and order his return to the county jail.
The most recent request comes after Hagler allegedly dropped a container filled with urine at the Carroll County Probation Office on Dec. 7 and told staff members that he had brought it with him to substitute for his own urine in order to pass a court-ordered drug screen.
Hagler, 19, is charged with negligent homicide, driving on a suspended license due to driving while intoxicated, driving under the influence/underage, possession of a controlled substance, purchase or possession by a minor and reckless driving. The charges stem from a June 22 accident that occurred on Carroll County Road 428. A passenger in Hagler’s vehicle, 20-year-old Destiny Mock of Eagle Rock, Mo., died in a Springfield, Mo., hospital two days after the accident.
According to court documents, Hagler failed a field sobriety test at the scene of the accident a portable breath test indicated that Hagler’s blood alcohol content was 0.11 percent approximately 40 minutes after the accident. Hagler allegedly admitted to an investigator that he had been drinking before the accident but denied using marijuana although the deputy who interviewed Hagler at the scene detected a strong odor of burnt marijuana and a marijuana cigarette was found in the vehicle, court documents say.
Hagler was released from the Carroll County Detention Center on Aug. 13 after a Harrison bonding company posted his $50,000 bond. As a condition of his release, Hagler was placed on house arrest with an ankle monitor and required to submit to weekly drug tests.
On Nov. 9, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Craig Parker filed a motion asking Special Judge Gary Arnold to revoke Hagler’s release based on an incident that allegedly occurred on the night of Nov. 8.
According to that motion, the Carroll County Sheriff’s Office responded to a call from a neighbor who indicated that Hagler “was operating a motor vehicle near the neighbor’s property in a loud and concerning manner.”
A deputy who responded to the call smelled the odor of marijuana and noted “what appeared to be a party or gathering of juveniles,” the motion says. The deputy later responded to another call from the same neighbor.
Parker’s Nov. 9 motion says that based on the Nov. 8 incident, Carroll County Probation and Parole — the agency that administers weekly drug screens to Hagler as a condition of his release — contacted Hagler to come in for a drug screening that morning. Hagler reported for the drug screen but reported that he was unable to provide a urine sample, according to Parker’s motion.
In the Nov. 9 motion, Parker asked Arnold to revoke Hagler’s release and order him back to jail to be held until trail. Alternatively, Parker asked that Hagler be jailed until he provides a urine sample.
An omnibus hearing was held on Nov. 9 at the Carroll County Eastern District Courthouse in Berryville to consider the motion to revoke Hagler’s release, as well as a prosecution motion for discovery. No order on either issue is included in the court record.
In the more recent motion, also filed by Parker, the deputy prosecutor writes that Hagler told probation office staff after dropping the container of urine on Dec. 7 that he had recently consumed a beverage that he believed contained alcohol and that he had brought in substitute urine because he was concerned he would test positive for alcohol.
“Given Defendant’s attempt to subvert the chemical test at the Probation Office, Defendant’s account of his recent consumption of alcohol — namely, that he did so inadvertently as a result of drinking an unidentified beverage which he did not prepare from a container at his home — is not credible or plausible,” Parker writes. “Defendant’s planning, preparation and attempt to subvert a chemical test indicates a consciousness of guilt of violation of his conditions of release, coupled with a desire and willingness to avoid the consequences of violating such conditions by dishonesty with the Court and its officers.”