Law&Crime Sidebar - Bombshell Twist in Naked Teen's Mysterious Death Case

Episode Date: August 29, 2025

After Noah Presgrove was found dead on the side of a rural Oklahoma road, his family filed a wrongful death lawsuit. Now, Noah's best friend, Jack Newton, has filed official paperwork claiming Noah brought his death on himself. Law&Crime's Jesse Weber breaks down the latest legal developments in the case with civil attorney Perry Fallick and Nic White, US Senior Investigations Reporter for DailyMail.comPLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If you’ve ever been injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. You can submit a claim in 8 clicks or less without having to leave your couch. To start your claim, visit: https://www.forthepeople.com/YouTubeTakeoverHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. It will soon be two years since 19-year-old Noah Presgrove was found dead on the side of a rural road out in Oklahoma, naked except for his shoes. This was just minutes away from a raucous Labor Day celebration with friends. Now, as a legal battle between Noah's family and those same friends heats up, Noah's own best friend has filed official paperwork saying that maybe Noah brought his death upon himself. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by law and crime. I'm Jesse Weber.

Labor Day weekend marks two years since a wild days-long party out in Oklahoma came to a sudden halt when one of those partygoers disappeared from the party and was found by a trucker on a rural road not far from the home where he and his friends were celebrating a birthday. We're talking about 19-year-old Noah Presgrove. It was referred to as Noah Nichols and legal paperwork. He was found dead along a highway. This was in Terrell, Oklahoma. He was reportedly in the fetal position, naked,

except for a mismatched pair of shoes. Some of his jewelry and even his teeth were scattered nearby. His injuries were shocking, to say the least. His neck was broken. His skull was split open. Many of his teeth were broken. And Noah, who is this star athlete in Comanche, Oklahoma, had graduated from high school a few months before he was reportedly planning to join the military with his cousin. This is according to family members' interviews with People magazine.

He had his whole life in front of him. And now you have this. An autopsy documented Noah's horrific injuries, but didn't provide a lot of information about what could have caused the damage to his body. And despite his family believing that he was beaten to death. dumped along the road. The Oklahoma Highway Patrol is not investigating this case as a murder. They've previously categorized the situation as suspicious in public statements, but really haven't provided much info at all. No one has ever been arrested or charged in connection with Noah's death. And frustrated with this lack of information from authorities, Noah's estate filed a wrongful

death lawsuit against multiple people allegedly involved with this party, seeking at least $75,000. dollars. But aside from monetary compensation, it seems that Noah's family is really hoping to learn more, to learn details about the night that he died by forcing depositions, getting evidence, learning more, discovering, and maybe it's the depositions from Noah's friends as well as from law enforcement that will provide that information. And as I mentioned, there are a lot of people connected to this case and the lawsuit named seven people in one corporation. Again, none of these people have been criminally charged with any wrongdoing, but they are listed here. They are Avery Joe Combs, also called Avery Joe Newton, the birthday girl who co-hosted the party.

Jack Newton, this is Noah's best friend since childhood. Caleb Newton, Jack's dad, who's accused of letting his son and others ride on a four-wheeler despite being intoxicated. Carter Combs, this is Avery Joe's sister and Jack's longtime girlfriend. The two recently announced on social media, they're expecting a child together. There's Stevie Howard, Avery Joe and Carter's mom, who apparently owned the trailer where much of the party took place. There's Johnny Trout Wilcoxon, Jr., the man who owned the property where the trailer was. There's Logan Jernigan, another friend who helped to organize the party. And the corporation listed in this suit is Val Petrol LLC, which owns a convenience store called Napoli's in Marlowe, Oklahoma.

So the lawsuit contends that Jack Newton, despite being underage, was reportedly able to buy alcohol for the party there. And the lawsuit also names John or Jane Doe's A through Z, meaning they're, as you have yet, unidentified people who, may have been involved in Noah's death and who may be liable who could be named as defendants at a later time. And remember, it's being alleged that over the course of several days, people came and went from this party, possibly as many as 40. So this lawsuit claims that there was a civil conspiracy to provide alcohol to underage individuals and to keep giving them alcohol despite clearly high levels of intoxication. The complaint reads, despite being underage, deceded, meaning Noah, was promised and provided copious amounts of alcohol.

if he attended the party. Defendants provided the decedent with alcohol over the course of multiple days, even after he was already intoxicated. During the party, defendant Caleb Newton permitted decedent to drive or ride his all-terrain vehicle while intoxicated. Decedent was involved in an all-terrain vehicle accident and sustained injuries. Now, friends have reportedly said that the ATV just tipped over that Noah wasn't really hurt, he was really just dirty, and Carter and another girl allegedly helped him shower off. This is according to reporting from the Daily Mail, and then apparently gave him a pair of Jack's basketball shorts to wear. Quote, toward the end of the party, defendants Jack Newton and Avery Howard were seen verbally fighting with decedent.

According to the Daily Mail, Noah apparently wanted to go sleep in Avery's bed, but she said he had to sleep on the floor. And they claimed Noah walked off in a hurry. He was angry, presumably going outside to cool off. And that was reportedly the last time he was. he was seen. Quote, at around 3.41 a.m. on September 4th, 2023, at least some party goers began to notice that the scene it was no longer physically present at the party. And 341 is a very specific time. It's actually related to a Snapchat photo that was posted by

another woman at the party named Jasmine Milan. And in it, she's got kind of this seemingly awkward smile. And the caption says, well, Noah's missing. Now, Milan later addressed the photo on Facebook saying it was meant as a joke at the time. and that she didn't know that any harm had actually come to Noah. Two hours after that photo was taken, or posted, I should say, Noah's broken body was found along the highway, around a mile away from the party spot. The lawsuit states,

decedent was beat to death by one or more of the defendants. Now, the complaint, to be clear, doesn't say who exactly they believe was involved in this alleged beating. But the complaint continues, defendants breached their duties of care to decedent by providing him with alcohol, by continuing to give him alcohol, after he was observantly intoxicated, by driving decedent around on an all-terrain vehicle

while intoxicated, and by selling alcohol to a minor who purchased alcohol for decedent to consume. Either intentionally or accidentally, the defendants killed decedent. So that lawsuit was filed in June. In July, a judge approved a subpoena that requires the Oklahoma Highway Patrol to turn over documents related to Noah's death. The Comanche Times reports that the investigative file contains a trial. trove of information, including all photographic audio and video evidence, statements from witnesses, and any lab analysis, or forensic findings. And then earlier this month, a few of the defendants

responded to the lawsuit with what's called an answer. Filings came from Val Petrol, as well as Caleb and Jack Newton. We're going to talk about it because most of the Newton's filings contain answers to the claims made in the original complaint. That's what you see in an answer. It's like confirming information, affirming it, denying it, saying you need more information. So you kind of see that throughout. For example, the document reads regarding paragraph one of plaintiff's petition, defendants admit Noah Nichols was a resident of Stevens County in September 2023. Defendants deny all other allegations, and they do that for every line in the lawsuit, which takes up almost 11 pages. But at the end of the filing,

defendants Caleb and Jack Newton offer up eight affirmative defenses that they say could be used to show they are not liable, they are not responsible for Noah's death. So to talk about the latest legal developments and how family members and friends are dealing with the upcoming anniversary of Noah's death. I want to welcome on two special guests. I'm joined by civil attorney Perry Falik and Nick White, U.S. Senior Investigations Reporter for Daily Mail.com. Thank you both for coming on. Nick will start with you. Before you've been dive into the legal filings, I just want to talk about the case and the investigation as a whole because it's kind of one of those mysteries that really pulls you in. It doesn't let you go. It's really disturbing to say

the least. Have you spoken with any family members, friends, people involved in the case? I mean, I've been following this since April last year, which was when it all really kicked off. I mean, we sort of created this, the national attention of this story. It was very local before that. So that's the extent of my involvement since then. So I've talked to like dozens of people since then. Some of the family, I've talked to people who are like friends who were related to the case, some of the people who were actually were there at the time and were involved in it and some of the witnesses. So there's a lot of people who were talked to primarily last year because this story

kind of, there was nothing that was happening since probably late last year until the lawsuit was filed in June. So a lot of people have been sort of carrying this for almost two years, like you say, But they've had a lot of, as it sort of went along, people were less interested in talking about it as they sort of wanted to move on and they realized that perhaps, especially soon as the lawsuit was even being talked about earlier this year, before it was actually filed that they maybe would better not talk too much in public. Hey, real quick, I want to give a shout out to Morgan and Morgan for sponsoring today's Law and Crime YouTube Takeover. Now, Morgan and Morgan is a firm with over 1,000 attorneys. You know why they're so big? You know why they have so many?

Because they win a lot. They have recovered over $25 billion for more than $500,000 clients. Think about that. In the past few months, a client in Florida received $12 million after the insurance company offered just $350,000. Out in Pennsylvania, a client was awarded $26 million. That is 40 times the insurer's $650,000 offer. Another client in Pennsylvania received $29 million after being offered only $500,000.

thousand dollars. And even if you think your case isn't worth millions of dollars, why not just start a claim and fight for what you deserve? Morgan and Morgan makes it so simple. You can start a claim from your phone in just eight clicks. So if you're injured, you can easily start a claim at for the people.com slash YouTube takeover by clicking the link below or scanning the QR code on screen. And what stood out to you about that? I mean, there's so many different players in this case, but what stood out to you? What was the main theme you were getting from your conversation? with the different people and the different players in this case? It really depends on who you talk to.

I mean, everyone has an opinion about how he died. And no one actually knows except the people who, you know, may have been there when it happened. And there's a lot of different possibilities that have been investigated. I mean, the first one was that he was hit by a truck. And that was quite quickly dismissed. But there are some people who are, like, closer to the case. Some of his friends who still hold that being a possibility.

I think because it absolves anyone of blame besides Prescott himself. But there's a lot of theories. There's a whole lot of people, especially people who are like locals in the town or the family, as he saw in a lawsuit, their theories that he was beaten to death deliberately or accidentally, but like whether they're meant to kill him or not,

they leave that open. But other people will say that he fell off the side of a truck. So there's a lot of different theories that are going around, and a lot of hostility that's been sort of simmering mostly on Facebook groups over the whole course of this time. And it really, once there was a national spotlight

on a lot of, I guess, people came out of the Woodward talk about it. A lot of people who were not involved in the case were talking about it. And we kind of got to this pressure cooker situation where like the two sides about it because there's almost like the family and a lot of the townspeople

and just random people who are interested in a case are all sort of lined up saying the friends that were at the party know too much. They must have seen something. Maybe they're hiding it, maybe they did it, and they have the most sinister possible idea for how it could have happened. Whereas from my conversations,

we'd say Jack Newton, who I talked to last year, and some of the other people that was on the parents and so on, they're all saying, well, look, we don't know. We weren't there. I like Jack maintains he was asleep from, say, 1.30 onwards. And no one didn't disappear for another hour and a half, two hours after that. Then he only found him on the road and he left at 6 a.m. So that's his claim that he doesn't know what happened,

but he can't think of anyone who'd have a reason to kill him or even beat him up to the point where he died. So there's sort of a lot of hostility about people saying, look, if you don't know, if you know what happened, why don't you tell us? And there's them saying, well, I don't know what happened. So I can't tell you. And that's been the conflict for the past probably 18 months.

Perry, before we go into this answer, what do you think of the lawsuit generally? I think it's a unique lawsuit from the perspective of, and I watch a lot of your other coverage and the prior coverage on this from law and crime. And I think it's true that, you know, because there are no criminal charges filed and there's no ongoing criminal investigation, the family felt this was their best option to get information. And one thing I thought was interesting is that, and I don't know how it is in Oklahoma, but generally in a civil suit, you don't have to name a specific amount of money you were suing for. But the $75,000 stuck out to me as extremely low based on the circumstances

and what the potential damages in this type of suit could be. But it makes sense from the perspective of this is a family who lost their son under very suspicious circumstances, and they're just trying to get information. So from that perspective, casting a broad net, suing numerous people, which would potentially allow you to take multiple depositions of the defendants, it makes sense from that standpoint, and it's not something you see every day. And sometimes a lawsuit can provide information that people are looking for. So I want to talk about a few of the most interesting affirmative defenses that were presented in this filing, or maybe defenses. You have number one, plaintiff's petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

So basically, even if you take everything is true, there's no cause of action here. There's no reasonable argument for getting any sort of damages. Number two, thecedent was negligent, and his negligence proximally caused or contributed to his accident and damages, if any, and decedent's negligence is comparatively greater than defendant's negligence. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to recover their alleged damages. And that is also kind of similar to number four on the list. defendants owed no duty of care to the decedent. Perry, cold when I read it from a legal filing, what do you make of those three defenses? Failure to state a claim. Didn't owe a duty. He contributed

to his own negligence. Well, first of all, I want to make clear what affirmative offenses are and what they aren't. So it could be spun in a lot of high profile cases. I understand why it is spun this way. And plaintiffs attorneys will do it too and use it to their advantage when they can in a high profile case, but an affirmative defense is essentially a defendant reserving their rights. And something I thought was interesting here that I don't know if I've ever really seen before, at least I haven't seen it in a New York case, is that the last paragraph of the affirmative defenses that these lawyers put in the answer very clearly lays out what affirmative defenses are, that they're reserving their rights so that they are not waived.

Because a lot of times, if you don't put these affirmative defenses in an answer, you may waive your right to assert them later. And they stated in the last sentence that they will withdraw them at the appropriate time, which would generally be right before trial or after all the evidence has come in. So I don't normally as a plaintiff's attorney, don't normally like to give a tip of the hat to a defense attorney. But I do think that's a smart thing to put in here to really lay out, hey, we're not blaming the plaintiff per se. We're saying that if the evidence bears that out if the facts ultimately show that he was at fault, that is a potential defense we're going to assert. And then moving on to the specific affirmative defenses, they're pretty

standard. So failure to state a claim is basically something you're going to see in every affirmative defense. What I think's telling here is that the defendants could have, instead of filing an answer, could have filed what's referred to as a pre-answer motion to dismiss. So if they truly thought that the plaintiffs in their complaint hadn't even made out a claim on the pleadings, on its face, they could have, instead of answering, they could have moved to dismiss and they didn't do that here. The second one is more interesting because in Oklahoma, they have what's called a modified comparative negligence rule or a 50% rule where it says that if a plaintiff is found to be 50% or more at fault, he can't recover. So if he was negligent, if the evidence

or the facts ultimately prove that NOAA was at least 50% responsible, the defendants here are saying, then they don't have a case and we're going to move to dismiss on those grounds. So that's a very interesting one where, for example, in New York, where I practice is a pure comparative negligence state, where you could be 80% responsible for your own accident and still recover that other 20%. So Oklahoma is a very different situation than what goes on in some other states.

that practice pure comparative negligence. And I appreciate you breaking that down. I think that's an important point. I should also say that the father and son also claim that this could have just been a terrible accident. It says the accident was an unavoidable accident, casualty and misfortune, which occurred without negligence on the part of the defendants. You go to number five.

Defendants at all time, relevant exercised ordinary care to prevent injury to themselves and others and had a right to assume decedent would obey the law. Now, Perry, before I go to you, Nick, based on these defenses. Does any of this add up from what you've seen in your investigation about what may or may not have occurred? I mean, a lot of, like I said, a lot of options on the table as to what actually happened. And since the only people who know are the people who were there who may or me not be Jack. And Caleb, Caleb claims he was never there at all. And he's basically said, I don't know why I'm involved in this. I was never there. And he also claims

the ATV was basically Jack's property, even if maybe he legally owns it, I'm not sure. They sold it last year. And so they basically, they're basically saying that look, a lot of things couldn't happen to could have happened to, and we don't know. But either way, it's not our fault.

And we'll see what happens with the evidence there. Because there, and a lot of the others, has basically held through the entire time as this has happened that they don't know what happened to him. He warned it off, and that's the last time we saw him, anything could have happened, but we didn't have anything to do with it. So that's going to be, so they're sort of basically saying, we have nothing to hide. But, you know, we didn't have anything to do with it.

Right. Perry, one of the things that stuck out to me about that last part is, right, many of the people at this party were under the age of 21. They were drinking heavily. When you're talking about exercising ordinary care, right? Exercising ordinary. care. All the defendants were exercising ordinary care to prevent injury to themselves and others and had a right to assume the seatant would obey the law. So I feel like a stretch. Am I looking at this the right way? Well, it depends. So first of all, I looked at Oklahoma law and they don't really, they do have a social host law that would apply to drinking alcohol or serving alcohol to underage minors. But it doesn't appear to me that there is a civil counterpart to that law. That law, the penalties under

that law are mostly criminal in nature. So, and I think it's telling because I don't believe that in this complaint, the plaintiff's estate brought any type of cause of action under the social host law. They tried, they're alleging a civil conspiracy and I think maybe trying to fit it under there. It could also fit under a pure negligence theory, but that would really only apply to people who have additional duty. So that would be the home owners, the parents, people who were some, you know, in a position of responsibility based on the location of the party. So they, so, you know, that's why in the, in the lawsuit, they named the Combs's, they named the mother who had her trailer on the property, because those people are in a position where they

do owe a duty of care to people they invite onto their property. And they do owe a duty of ordinary care. Now, we're talking about Caleb and his dad, if his dad had no ownership of that property and whether or not he was at the party, he doesn't really have a duty to Noah from that standpoint. Now, the only duty may arise from this ATV and whether who owned it and who didn't own it and how much the accident did or didn't contribute to his death. So maybe there is a hook there and at this stage before any discoveries happen, basically what they allege in the complaint should be enough. Although I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other defendants when they ultimately respond to the complaint, you may get at least one or more pre-answer motions to

dismiss that I discussed earlier instead of just pure answers, even if those motions to dismiss are not to get rid of the whole case, but maybe just to narrow down some of the claims or knock out certain allegations that don't have enough factual support behind them at this stage. So I do think there is something there based on the defendant and what their responsibility was to Noah, and especially if you're an adult and you're at a party like that where you know there's people drinking, but underage, any underage people, you do have a duty to those individuals. And it brings me to number six, where it says, decedent with full knowledge of the risks inherent and consuming excessive quantities of alcohol, including the risk of injury or

death, voluntarily chose to participate and therefore decedent knowingly and voluntarily assume the risk. And the filing also argues that claims of punitive damages are unconstitutional, of the Fifth Amendment and the 14th Amendment, so Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, basically damages they have to be reasonable, they have to be proportionate. And as I mentioned, Val Petrol also filed an answer to the complaint, offered its own affirmative defenses, saying the plaintiff failed to show that Val Petrol owed a duty to Noah, violated Oklahoma laws on the sale of alcoholic beverages, had any direct connection to Noah's death. Perry, your reaction to that?

and these filings overall, what should we be thinking about? Well, so speaking about the petrol answer, I do think there's merit to that based on the little amount that's in the complaint. Normally, any time there is a dram shop act, it's referred to a lot of time, or a social host law, where it applies to commercial establishments who are selling alcohol to people. It's normally intended to protect a third party. So in this situation, it's unique in that there's no allegation

that Noah bought the alcohol from this establishment, right? There are other individuals who went there, purchased the alcohol. Those people then, it's about how drunk those people were and then causing injury to a third person. So in this situation, for example, a drunk driving accident. If a bar overserves an individual and that individual then goes out and gets in an accident with a third person and injures them, that third person who's injured can, in theory,

in states that have these type of dram shops, social host, laws could sue the establishment, the commercial vendor that sold the alcohol. That's not really what we have going on here. Noah was consuming alcohol voluntarily by all accounts. There's no information that he was being forced to drink. So if his intoxication caused his injury, I don't see any claims or any basis to hold the originator of the alcohol liable under these facts. So I understand why they're bringing that into play.

I understand the parents are casting a wide net, like I said at the beginning, because they're trying to get information here. So that all makes sense to me. But ultimately, I don't know what the hook is to the Val petrol or the gas station that sold the alcohol. That's a good point. I hear you. Nick, to wrap things up here, though, just going back to it.

Law enforcement's position has been what, that they're not investigating this as a murder, right? And correct me, and what should people do? if they feel like they have information that might help in an investigation in some way. So what is law enforcement's position at this point? And if people do have more information, what would you encourage them to do? I mean, law enforcement has been very tight-lipped the entire investigation. Unusually so, I would say, if I compare it to other, you know, death investigations. And that they have revealed basically nothing until the collective media forced their hand in revealing the autopsy report

months and months after it would usually be made public or even provided to the family, which it wasn't. They've said that on investigating as a murder, and you can interpret that as meaning that they haven't ruled out manslaughter. But it depends on what they meant when they said that. They could also be assuming it was an accident. But there's no real way to know that because they weren't tell us. They won't tell anyone.

They've changed investigators since then now as well. So it's really hard to know what they're thinking. and how hard they've been working on this. They've said that, you know, we're still working on this. It's still an open investigation whenever you ask them, but they won't tell you anything new or any relevance about it. So it's hard to know what their actual thoughts on beyond that they don't think it was murder.

The family doesn't agree with this and neither do a lot of people who've been following the case. But that's just where the police have got to their facts. Yeah, so I don't, it's hard to know what's actually. actually going on their heads. And if people have more information, you encourage where to go or what to do? Yeah.

Every time this has come up, it's been the family's pleaded for information for a very long time. They can call the Oklahoma Highway Patrol and tell them what they know, which, I mean, really that needed to have happened two years ago, almost. But if they've got something weighing on,

then, I mean, this is really the time before this lawsuit potentially spirals out of control. Perry Fallick, Nick White, thank you both so much for coming on, appreciate it. And that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time.

of this long crime series, ad-free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.