The recording captured comments about a $100 moped debt and regret after a co-worker was burned, police said.
TRUMANN, Ark. — A witness video helped investigators build a first-degree battery case against a Trumann recycling worker accused of burning a co-worker with a metal-cutting blowtorch, according to a police affidavit.
The recording, described by Detective Garrett Woods of the Poinsett County Sheriff’s Office, is one of the key pieces of evidence cited against Joshua Warren Campbell, 37. Police said Campbell and the injured man worked at Metal Man Recycling, where the March 23 incident occurred. The victim suffered second- and third-degree burns to his back and later needed a skin graft. Campbell was booked April 20 and later released after posting $10,000 bond.
The video entered the case after the injured worker spoke with police at the Trumann Police Department. He told investigators that another man had recorded Campbell admitting he burned him on purpose. Woods then spoke with the witness and obtained the recording, according to the affidavit. The witness said he saw the victim lying on the floor with burns visible on his back and believed the man was dead. That account gave investigators both a scene description and a path to the alleged statements they later used in the probable cause filing.
Police said Campbell could be heard in the video talking about why the attack happened. The affidavit said Campbell stated that the victim owed another employee’s father $100 for a moped. Woods wrote that Campbell also said he “felt bad for it” and “wished it was the other way around.” The affidavit said Campbell added that the victim did not deserve “karma like that” and that he knew the injury hurt. Investigators treated the recording as evidence linking the burn, the debt dispute and Campbell’s state of mind after the incident.
The affidavit did not include a full public transcript of the video, and reports reviewed did not say whether the recording was made before police arrived, after emergency care began or later during a separate conversation. It also was not clear whether Campbell knew he was being recorded. Those details may matter later if prosecutors seek to use the video in court and the defense challenges how it was obtained or interpreted. At this stage, the video has been described in the affidavit but has not been publicly released in full.
The physical evidence described by police was severe. Investigators said Campbell used a blowtorch designed to cut metal and directed it at the victim’s back while both men were working at Metal Man Recycling. The victim suffered second- and third-degree burns. He also sustained a fractured rib and bruising to his leg when he hit the ground after catching fire, according to the affidavit. The burn injury required surgery and a skin graft. The public reports did not say whether photos, medical records or the torch itself were filed with the court.
The victim’s own statement gave investigators a possible warning sign before the burning. He told police he had learned Campbell and another employee had discussed “jumping” him before the alleged assault. Police have not said who told the victim about that discussion, whether he heard it himself or whether the other employee was present when the torch was used. The affidavit’s wording leaves some facts unresolved, but it made the alleged pre-attack discussion part of the evidence supporting the battery charge.
Campbell was arrested after a judge found probable cause on one count of first-degree battery. The charge does not mean he has been convicted. Prosecutors will have to prove the case, and Campbell will have the chance to contest the evidence. Reports said he was booked into the Poinsett County Detention Center on April 20, nearly a month after the March 23 incident. He later posted a $10,000 bond and was released from jail. A next court date was not immediately available in the public reports.
The alleged motive described in the affidavit was a $100 debt connected to a moped. Police said the money was owed to the father of another employee, not to Campbell directly. The reports do not say whether the debt was documented, disputed or connected to any prior confrontation at work. The amount is small compared with the injury described by investigators, but the affidavit used it to explain what Campbell allegedly discussed in the video. No public report says the other employee or the father has been charged.
Metal Man Recycling was the workplace setting for the incident, making the alleged weapon part of the environment rather than an item brought from outside, based on the affidavit. Recycling businesses may use torches to cut metal pieces that are too large or irregular to move or process whole. Police did not say what job the men were performing at the moment of the burn. They also did not say whether work stopped afterward, whether the company issued a statement or whether state workplace safety officials opened a separate review.
The case now appears to rest on several kinds of proof. The medical evidence shows the extent of injury. The victim’s statement describes what he believed happened before and during the alleged assault. The witness account places the victim on the floor with visible burns. The video, as described by Woods, captures Campbell discussing the debt and making comments about the harm. Together, those pieces led a judge to find probable cause. They have not yet been weighed by a jury or tested at trial.
Several questions remain open as the case moves forward. Public records reviewed in reports did not list Campbell’s next court date, plea status or attorney. Police have not released the victim’s name. The affidavit did not publicly answer whether the incident was captured by business cameras, how many employees were nearby or how emergency responders first described the scene. It also remains unclear whether prosecutors will file additional documents that give a more complete timeline from the start of the shift to the moment medical help arrived.
For now, Campbell is out of jail on bond while facing one count of first-degree battery. The next major development is expected in Poinsett County court, where the witness video and medical evidence could become central to the prosecution’s case.
Author note: Last updated May 20, 2026.