A Rutherford County case raises uncomfortable questions about judicial discretion and a plea deal for a former paramedic’s conduct with a 16-year-old
By Annie Dance | Lake Lure News | Cops & Congress | News & Commentary | Reporting from Rutherfordton, NC
If you’re not from Rutherford County, North Carolina, here’s the part of this story you need to know. If you live here, you likely already know.
Rutherford County is located in rural western North Carolina between Asheville and Charlotte. Its court system is overseen by judges who have enormous discretion over criminal cases.
One of those judges is Superior Court Judge J. Thomas Davis, a.k.a. Tommy Davis, the senior resident superior court judge for Rutherford and McDowell counties.
Davis was first elected as judge in 2006, when he won against David Norris. In 2012, he beat Deborah Burgin and won re-election in 2020, unopposed. He worked alongside former Chief District Court Judge Randy Pool, who was censured and retired after controversy.
One of the cases that came before him raises questions that deserve more than a passing glance.
The defendant was Michael Derek Baugham, a former Rutherford County paramedic.
According to court records, Baugham was indicted on charges including indecent liberties with a child, a felony, and sexual battery, a misdemeanor.
The allegations described in the court file are disturbing to me. They were investigated by now-retired Detective Adrienne Wallace of the Rutherford County Sheriff’s Office. The records state that the alleged victim was 16 and that Baugham allegedly forced her to perform oral sex.
Those are allegations contained in the charging documents. They are not a conviction, and Baugham ultimately did not plead guilty to those charges.
Instead, he pleaded guilty to simple assault for “unwanted touching.”
That’s where Judge Davis comes in.
The plea agreement stated that sentencing was in the court’s discretion. The state was not requesting active prison time; Baugham was to have no contact with the person identified in the agreement, and the state would dismiss the remaining charges.
The elected district attorney, Ted Bell, and his prosecutor did not request time behind bars for the conduct.
Davis signed off on the agreement.
The judge had the discretion to approve it — or not. He approved it.
That fact matters.
It is easy to look at a plea deal and say, “That’s what prosecutors negotiated.”
But that’s not the whole story.
A plea agreement still goes before a judge. The judge has the authority to reject it. In this case, the judge who had that authority was Davis.
And the end result was a misdemeanor conviction for simple assault rather than convictions on the more serious charges.
The court record indicates the case went directly to a grand jury.
So here’s the question I keep coming back to: Why was this the resolution if the defendant was indicted by a grand jury?
I’m not suggesting Baugham should have been convicted of charges to which he did not plead guilty. That’s not how the justice system works.
I’m not suggesting Judge Davis acted illegally.
I’m saying the public is entitled to examine the exercise of judicial discretion when the underlying allegations are this serious.
One glaring issue to me that keeps recurring: Hardly anything seems to be in writing, especially not in the local court. If it’s not in writing it effectively doesn’t exist, for news, commentary, analysis and archival purposes.
And there is another important point for anyone reading this from outside Rutherford County: There is no evidence in the public court records that the victim was Baugham’s patient.
Baugham was employed by Rutherford County EMS and had worked as a paramedic.
That distinction matters because facts should not be embellished simply because they make a story more dramatic.
The facts already raise enough questions.
Then there’s another wrinkle.
The court file contains recommendation letters from Rutherford County EMS officials praising Baugham’s professional character and abilities.
One letter from EMS Director Kaleb Johnson (page 42) praised his dedication and clinical skills.
Another described him as a paramedic of “exceptional character and skill.”
And an Aug. 9, 2024, letter from Rutherford County EMS Assistant Director Carl McKnight recommended Baugham and described him as a highly skilled and compassionate paramedic.
These letters became part of the public court file.
I believe they raise serious questions about how a public agency handled an employee who had been indicted on criminal charges.
And that brings us back to Judge Davis.
The court ultimately resolved the criminal case. A later order signed by Davis states that probation was terminated and all monies were paid in full.
Case closed.
But public scrutiny doesn’t have to end with the court file.
There is a fundamental difference between whether the judge had the authority to do what he chose to do and whether or not there are legitimate questions about why he did it.
Judicial discretion is an important part of our justice system.
So is accountability.
Whether you’re sitting inside or outside Rutherford County wondering why this matters, here’s the simplest version:
A grand jury indictment alleged serious conduct.
The defendant ultimately pleaded guilty to simple assault.
The more serious charges were dismissed.
The state did not seek active prison time.
The judge with the authority to approve or reject the deal approved it.
That’s the story.
The question now isn’t whether Judge Davis had discretion. He did.
The question is what informed his decision to use that discretion the way he did. State law gives judges authority.
I believe the voters, the taxpayers, and people of the judicial district, not just the people inside the courthouse, are paying close attention.
—
This newsletter is supported by readers like you. Paid subscribers have access to the full archive.
Annie Dance | Lake Lure News | Cops & Congress | News & Commentary
—
🏛️ All those mentioned are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Learn more about this newsletter, ethics policy, how you can help shape this work, and support it. Follow on X and Facebook. Send constructive criticism, fan mail, and tips with public documents for future stories: CopsandCongress@gmail.com
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.