Motion to dismiss: Joseph says neither he nor Rocco ever saw Gary LaTurner's body

In a motion to dismiss filed Monday in Cherokee County District Court, Joplin dentist John Joseph claims that neither he nor his son Rocco ever saw the body of Gary LaTurner, 60, Galena, at any time and that even if he had, he wasn't the one driving the car that hit LaTurner anyway.

In the motion, which was filed by Joseph's attorney Phil Glades, says there is no evidence "Jay Joseph knowingly associated with any unlawful venture."

Joseph is charged with leaving the scene of a fatality accident and contributing to a child's misconduct in connection with the August 19, 2023 hit-and-run that claimed LaTurner's life.

From the motion:

Relevant factual background

On August 20, 2-23, at approximately 9:22 a.m., Kansas Highway Patrol Trooper N R. Reddy responsed to K-66 highway milepost 2.0 in Galena, Kansas. Trooper Reddy was dispatched to the location in response to a report from Karen Black. Mrs. Black reported seeing a body in the ditch at the dispatched location.

Ms. Black, who had passed the location after sun-up, described initially thinking there was a blanket in the ditch and only realized it was a body when she passed the location a second time.

Trooper Reddy observed Gary Wayne LaTurner, an adult male, in the south side ditch of K-66 highway at MP 2.9. Mr. LaTurner was deceased. LaTurner's autopsy revealed that he was very small in stature, standing only 4 feet 10 inches tall and weighing only 76 pounds.

Trooper Reddy noted in his investigation that the collision site "was dark with no supplemental lighting in the area."

On Monday, August 21, 2023, undersigned counsel contacted KHIP investigators to arrange an interview of R. J. (Rocco Joseph) regarding Mr. LaTurner's death. R. J. traveled to KHP Troop A headquarters and submitted to an interview. He also voluntarily surrendered both his truck keys and cellular telephone for examination.

KHP investigator Nicholas Irwin inspected R. J.'s vehicle and observed "minor damage" to the front passenger side head lamp.

R. J. stated that on the night of August 19, 2023, he was driving his vehicle when, between Riverton and Galena, his vehicle struck an unknown object. R. J. reported not seeing anything during the collision and the collision did not slow his vehicle down in any regard so R. J. continued driving.

R. J. immediately called his father, Jay Joseph, and stated he might have hit a wild animal. A few minutes later, Jay Joseph and R. J. met at Casey's General Store located at 32nd Street and Schifferdecker Avenue in Joplin, Missouri so that Jay could examine the condition of R. J.'s vehicle.

Jay and R. J. (in Jay's vehicle) then responded to the vicinity of the accident. When neither Jay nor R. J. observed anything in the street that made them suspicious or made them feel they need to stop and investigate, they went home.

After noting that a motion to dismiss the case can be made prior to the arraignment and that the preliminary hearing has not yet been held, Glades listed the following reasons he felt the charge of leaving the scene of a fatality accident should be dismissed.

"Jay Joseph was not a driver or occupant of any vehicle involved in the accident and therefore cannot be charged with Count 1 of the information alleging a violation of (the law)."

Glades said the charge is not "an ongoing criminal enterprise."

"Once a driver involved in a collision or accident who has a duty to report leaves the scene of an accident, the criminal offense has been completed. Further, the duty to report or face criminal penalties under {the law} applies only to the driver of an involved vehicle."

The alleged crime was "complete before Jay was even aware of the collision and because Jay was neither a driver nor an occupant of the vehicle at the time of the collision."

Glades said it appears the prosecution is trying to hold Joseph responsible under an "accomplice liability theory," but that failing to stop or report a crime is not covered under that legal theory.

It is uncontroverted that Jay Joseph was not a driver, occupant or other participant at the scene of and at the time of the collision. Further R. J.  had already continued driving from the accident scene before calling Jay Joseph, therefore, Jay did not solicit, request or command R. J. to leave the scene of an accident. If a violation of {the law} by R. J. occurred, it had already occurred prior to Jay Joseph even being contacted by R. J. Thus, the law does not support charging Jay under a theory of accomplice liability.

Not only that, Glades says in the motion, but "there is no evidence that Jay Joseph knowingly associated with any unlawful venture," since Rocco told him he believed he had hit a wild animal and said nothing about a person being injured or killed.

The same reasoning covers the second count, Glades said, because Joseph did not "knowingly cause or encourage R. J. to leave the scene of an accident."

The state cannot dispute this evidence and, in fact, their evidence- video showing that Jay and R. J. voluntarily returned to the scene and then did nothing to try to cover up a potential crime- supports statements by Jay and R. J. indicating that their investigation revealed no information that would cause them to conclude that R. J. had a duty to stop/report.