ARBCA has changed its name to CBA (Confessional Baptist Association). Their old website does not always forward to the new website. Note: IRBS has also changed its name to International Reformed Baptist Seminary in 2022.

An archive of ARBCA’s former website (https://www.arbca.com/ – this link will not always load or redirect now) redirecting to CBA’s website (https://www.cba1689.com/).

On the Internet Archive, it records the redirection as beginning in August, 2022 (https://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000*/https://www.arbca.com).

ARBCA transitioning to CBA on Sermon Audio (https://www.sermonaudio.com/source_about.asp?sourceid=arbca or https://web.archive.org/web/20220923175846/https://www.sermonaudio.com/source_about.asp?sourceid=arbca).

IRBS announcing its new name on FaceBook (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=344464634387445&set=pb.100064717324947.-2207520000..&type=3).

Tom Chantry’s third trial for four counts of molestation has been dismissed without prejudice.  “Without prejudice” means that it is possible for the case to be re-filed at a later point before the statute of limitations expires.  The victim stands by his previous statements and testimony but does not wish to revisit this time in his life or relive the experiences again.  Tom Chantry’s convictions for two counts Aggravated Assault (both class 6 felonies) are unaffected.

Please see the documents that have been added to the ARBCA and Tom Chantry Document Walkthrough for further details. 

#53 Petition: To Discharge Probation (3/4/2022)

This is a petition to discharge probation for the two counts Aggravated Assault Tom Chantry was found guilty of on October 19, 2018.  I encourage you to read the document for yourself.

“The defendant was found guilty of two counts Aggravated Assault, both class 6 felonies, on October 19, 2018…The defendant’s full term of probation expired in this case on October 17, 2021.”

#54 Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice (5/2/2022)

This is the petition to dismiss the case without prejudice.  “Without prejudice” means that it is possible for the case to be re-filed at a later point before the statute of limitations expires.  I encourage you to read the document for yourself.

“The victim in this case is unwilling/unable to provide testimony at the present time and the State does not wish to further traumatize him by forcing him to testify.”

#55 Miscellaneous Attachments (5/2/2022)

This is the victim’s statement that was attached to the Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice.  I encourage you to read the document for yourself.

“I stand by all of my previous statements and testimony and reaffirm that he is guilty of everything of which I have accused him.  I sincerely hope that Chantry is one day brought to justice and that no other child has to suffer at his hand the way that I have suffered.  However, my personal situation has now changed, and I do not wish to revisit this time in my life or relive these experiences again.”

#56 Order Dismissing Case Without Prejudice (5/2/2022)

This a petition to discharge probation for the two counts Aggravated Assault Tom Chantry was found guilty of on October 19, 2018.  I encourage you to read the document for yourself.

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED dismissing the above captioned case without prejudice.”

Tom Chantry’s third trial for four counts of molestation has been scheduled for May 10-13 and 17-20, 2022 in Div. 4.  The Court will tentatively hold April 15, 2022 for the Evidentiary Hearing.

I have added the following document to the ARBCA and Tom Chantry Document Walk-through.

#52 Minute Entry Scheduling Conference (3/4/2022)

This is the Minute Entry for the Scheduling Conference for Tom Chanty’s third trial for four counts of molestation.  It is a short document so I have included much of the text in the quotes below, but I encourage you to read the document for yourself.

“Trial 8 days allotted May 10-13, 2022 and May 17-20, 2022, in Div. 4.”

“Counsel for State advises the Court that she may be consulting with an expert on paraphilia and requests a two-week (eight day) Trial setting.  Counsel for State notes she is wanting to invoke the speedy trial rights given how long this matter has been ongoing.”

“Defense Counsel advises the Court the Defendant is willing to waive some time as needed and requests a full day Motions Hearing.”

“The Court notes it will tentatively hold April 15, 2022 for the Evidentiary Hearing regarding Motions which shall be confirmed by separate Minute Entry.”

Tom Chantry was released on $250,000 bond on 3/3/2022, and a Scheduling Conference took place on 3/4/2022.  The conditions and order of his release are in the following documents.  I do not yet have documentation from the Scheduling Conference and will post when I have them and/or a date for the trial.

I have added the following documents to the ARBCA and Tom Chantry Document Walk-through.

#50 Order Under Advisement Ruling (3/1/2022)

This is the order setting the conditions for Tom Chantry’s release prior to the third trial.  It is a short document, so I have included most of it in the quote below.

“THE COURT FINDS:

1. The State has proven that there is proof evident, presumption great that the Defendant is guilty of the charges pursuant to A.R.S § 13-3961 and Ariz R. Crim P. 7.2(b)(2)(A).
2. The State has not met its burden under A.R.S § 13-3961(D) and Rule 7.2(b)(2)(B) and 7.2(b)(3) that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant poses a substantial danger to the victim, any other person or the community considering the factors enumerated in Rule 7.2(b)(3).
3. The State has failed to prove that there are no combinations of release conditions that will reasonably assure the safety of an individual or the community per Rule 7.2(b)(2)(C).

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED Defendant’s release conditions shall be modified as follows:

1. Bond is set at $250,000 cash or secured.
2. Defendant is not to apply for a passport.
3. If Defendant posts bond, he shall be released to Pretrial Services.  He must report to Pretrial Services upon release; no later than 48 hours after release.
4. Defendant may reside in Illinois pending trial but must provide his residential address to Pretrial Services.
5. Defendant shall not have any contact with any minors under the age of 15, with the exception that he may have supervised contact with his children.
6. Defendant shall not be within 100 yards of a school or educational facility, daycare or day camp facility.
7. Defendant must check-in weekly with Pretrial Services from a designated landline.
8. Defendant shall have no contact with victims, witnesses, or arresting officers.”

#51 Order of Release (3/3/2022)

This is the order notifying the Court that bond has been posted, ordering Tom Chantry’s release prior to the third trial, and confirms a Scheduling Conference for 3/4/2022.  It is a short document, so I have included the text in the quote below.

“The Court has been advised by the Clerk of the Court that a cash/surety bond in the amount of $250,000.00 has been posted at the Clerk’s Office this date on the Defendant’s behalf.  Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED releasing the Defendant from custody.

The court confirms the Scheduling Conference set for Friday, March 4, 2022 at 4:30p.m. in Division 4.”

Tom Chantry’s case has been remanded to the Yavapai County Superior Court in Prescott, AZ for a new trial.  The Status Conference/Initial Appearance has been set for February 22, 2022.  Tom Chantry will be transported to the Yavapai County Superior Court for this Status Conference/Initial Appearance and will remain in the custody of the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office until the conclusion of proceedings in this matter.

I have added the following documents to the ARBCA and Tom Chantry Document Walk-through.

#47 STATE v. CHANTRY Mandate (2/2/2022)

The AZ Supreme Court Denied the Prosecutor’s Petition for Review of Tom Chantry’s Case, so the mandate from the AZ Court of Appeals was upheld and published.  The AZ Court of Appeals reversed Thomas Chantry’s convictions and sentences for four counts of child molestation and remanded the matter for a new trial because the convictions were obtained with the use of impermissible “other act” evidence.  Please note that this does not reverse the convictions from Thomas Chantry’s first trial.

Here are two of the most relevant quotes, but I encourage you to read the entire document:

“¶1 Thomas Jonathan Chantry appeals his convictions and sentences for four counts of child molestation. Because Chantry’s convictions were obtained with the use of impermissible ‘other act’ evidence, we reverse and remand the matter for a new trial.”

“¶27 We agree with Chantry that the superior court abused its discretion by admitting, under Rule 404(b), evidence of Chantry’s excessive, sometimes bare bottomed, spankings of J.W., W.W., and D.L. After prohibiting the State from offering the other-act evidence to show Chantry had an aberrant sexual propensity to commit the charged crimes, the court should not have permitted the State “to raise this same inference under the rubric of ‘intent.’” State v. Ives, 187 Ariz. 102, 110 (1996).”

#48 STATE v. CHANTRY Order Reassignment of Judge (2/3/2022)

“IT IS ORDERED reassigning this matter to the Honorable Krista M. Carman, Division 4 for all further proceedings.”

#49 STATE v. CHANTRY Order Setting Status Conference/Initial Appearance (2/3/2022)

“IT IS ORDERED setting a Status Conference/Initial Appearance in this matter on Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:00a.m. before the Honorable Krista M. Carman, Division 4, Courtroom 400, Prescott Judicial District, 120 S. Cortez Street, Prescott, Arizona.”

“IT IS ORDERED that the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office transport Thomas Chantry, DOC #338181, from the Department of Corrections, ASPC Eyman- Meadows Unit, Florence, Arizona, to the Yavapai County Superior Court for a Status Conference/Initial Appearance on Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:00a.m. before the Honorable Krista M. Carman, Division 4, Courtroom 400, Prescott Judicial District, 120 S. Cortez Street, Prescott, Arizona.”

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Yavapai County Sheriff shall retain custody of the Defendant until the conclusion of the proceedings in this matter.”

I have added the following Document to the ARBCA and Tom Chantry Document Walk-through.

#46 STATE v. CHANTRY Appellate Case Information (1/4/2022)

The AZ Supreme Court Denied the Prosecutor’s Petition for Review of Tom Chantry’s Case.  It is my understanding that the case will now go back to the lower court for a new trial.  If the victim is unable to go through a third trial, I think that will be the end of the case and Tom Chantry will be released.  Please note that verdict by the AZ Court of Appeals and the AZ Supreme Court’s denial of the Petition for Review are rulings regarding the trial and not the innocence or guilt of Tom Chantry.  Also, neither affect the convictions from Tom Chantry’s first trial.

The case # in the Court of Appeals is 1 CA-CR 190427.  It can be viewed here (scroll to State v. Chantry): http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/aacc/appella/stage_1CA_CR_caption.htm or here (launches document): http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/aacc/appella/1CA/CR/CR190427.PDF

You can check Tom Chantry’s status on the Inmate Datasearch by searching for his Inmate Number (338181) or name. https://corrections.az.gov/public-resources/inmate-datasearch

Tom Chantry’s case is now on the AZ Supreme Court Schedule for Tuesday, January 4, 2022. 

The AZ Supreme Court Schedule is here: https://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/aacc/asc/asccalendar.htm

Edited to Add: According to this page (https://www.azcourts.gov/Electronic-Hearings), I think the hearing may be able to be watched live on the AZ Supreme Court’s YouTube Channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtlZzNDKpHY0W1jN2KhqV-g

The case # in the AZ Supreme Court is CR-21-0120-PR.  It can be viewed here (scroll to State of Arizona v. Thomas Jonathan Chantry): http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/aacc/appella/000_ASC_LOWERCOURT_INDEX.HTM or here (launches document): http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/aacc/appella/ASC/CR/CR210120.pdf

The case # in the Court of Appeals is 1 CA-CR 190427.  It can be viewed here (scroll to State v. Chantry): http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/aacc/appella/stage_1CA_CR_caption.htm or here (launches document): http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/aacc/appella/1CA/CR/CR190427.PDF

At present Tom Chantry remains in prison.  You can check his status on the Inmate Datasearch by searching for his Inmate Number (338181) or name. https://corrections.az.gov/public-resources/inmate-datasearch

The following part of section #1 of the IRBS Seminary, ARBCA, & Tom Chantry page was edited (addition in red):

Men at IRBS Seminary that are still in ARBCA churches (https://www.arbca.com/churches):

• Charles Rennie (Core Professor): Pastor of Sycamore Reformed Baptist Church in East Moline, IL (https://www.facebook.com/IRBSTheologicalSeminary/posts/4206969229360046; https://ephesians511home.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/2021-06-07-at-13-13-57-irbs-theological-seminary-posts-facebook.png) Note: the links will be updated when IRBS updates their Faculty page.
• Jason Montgomery (Adjunct Faculty): Pastor of Faith Community Baptist Church in Fort Worth, TX; member of 2019/2020 ARBCA AC (https://irbsseminary.org/faculty/ or https://web.archive.org/web/20210112190936/https://irbsseminary.org/faculty/)
• Brent Ward (Director of Development): Member of Heritage Baptist Church in Mansfield, TX (https://irbsseminary.org/administration/brent-ward/ or https://web.archive.org/web/20200203225442/https://irbsseminary.org/administration/brent-ward/)

The following sections were edited/added (edits/additions in red):

This section is from #1 IRBS’s Home Page:

Men at IRBS Seminary that were involved with ARBCA and Tom Chantry but we can’t tell if they are still part of IRBS:

• Steve Martin (took the Oath of Office as Core Faculty on 9/11/2018 and spoke as Dean of Students of IRBS Seminary on 12/15/2019 but not listed on IRBS’s website) **As noted in section #10 on Steve Martin’s page, he retired as Dean of Students at IRBS Theological Seminary in April 2020.  This is being left for reference.
• Don Lindblad (ceased to be a Trustee sometime after Summer 2018 when the Trustee page disappeared). This is being left for reference.
• Jason Walter Trustee – Secretary [James Renihan at IRBS Theological Seminary Inaugural Commencement, May 14, 2021]
• Fred Pugh Trustee – Chairman of the Board [James Renihan at IRBS Theological Seminary Inaugural Commencement, May 14, 2021]

This section is from #2 IRBS Website: ABOUT/Board of Trustees:

James Renihan listed the Board of Trustees at the IRBS Theological Seminary Inaugural Commencement, May 14, 2021. They are as follows:

• Fred Pugh – Chairman of the Board, Pastor of Grace Covenant Church in Olmstead Township, OH; ARBCA Coordinator until 11/2019.
• Dr. Stephen Means – Vice Chair
• Jason Walter – Secretary, Pastor of Christ Reformed Baptist Church, CA, Secretary of the 2019 Administrative Council.
• Frank Strickland – Treasurer
• Oliver Allmand-Smith
• Michael Prodigalidad
• Ben Scofield
• Nathan White

The entire video can be found at https://www.facebook.com/432795293444144/videos/694633661271048 The above clip starts at 45:10.

I added the following document to the ARBCA and Tom Chantry Document Walk-through.

#45 STATE v. CHANTRY Decision of the Court (2/25/2021)

The AZ Court of Appeals reversed Thomas Chantry’s convictions and sentences for four counts of child molestation and remanded the matter for a new trial because the convictions were obtained with the use of impermissible “other act” evidence.  Please note that this does not reverse the convictions from Thomas Chantry’s first trial.

Here are two of the most relevant quotes, but I encourage you to read the entire document:

“¶1 Thomas Jonathan Chantry appeals his convictions and sentences for four counts of child molestation. Because Chantry’s convictions were obtained with the use of impermissible ‘other act’ evidence, we reverse and remand the matter for a new trial.”

“¶27 We agree with Chantry that the superior court abused its discretion by admitting, under Rule 404(b), evidence of Chantry’s excessive, sometimes bare bottomed, spankings of J.W., W.W., and D.L. After prohibiting the State from offering the other-act evidence to show Chantry had an aberrant sexual propensity to commit the charged crimes, the court should not have permitted the State “to raise this same inference under the rubric of ‘intent.’” State v. Ives, 187 Ariz. 102, 110 (1996).”

The Decision of the Court can be read here.  When I have obtained a copy from the court, I will add it to Scribd and embed it.

https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/court-of-appeals-division-one-unpublished/2021/1-ca-cr-19-0427.html