THE COURT: Next witness, please.

MR. PANOSH: Mr. Apple, please.

HARVEY APPLE, being first duly sworn, testified as follows during DIRECT EXAMINATION by MR. PANOSH:

Q    Would you state your name, sir.

A    Harvey Apple.

Q    And your occupation, sir?

A    I'm an insurance agent with Mass Mutual.

Q    And in the course of your duties, do you sell life insurance?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And in the course of your duties and occupation, did you write various insurance for the -- for Theodore Kimble and Lyles?

A    Yes.

Q    Did there come a time on or about March the 1st of 1995 when you scheduled an appointment in reference to a life insurance policy application for Patricia Kimble?

A    That's correct.

Q    Would you tell the jury about that, please.

A    Actually, I saw Ted Kimble on February the 24th at Lyles Building Supply. And I recollect that because I have the information in my day-timer. And at that time, he was considering some coverage on Patricia. And he had gotten a

804

proposal from State Farm. But because he already had coverage with me, he said he would like to see a proposal from Mass Mutual. At that time, he was looking at $100,000. So we ran some figures for $100,000.

And then when I talked to him again, and because she already had 25, and he had 100 that was payable to her, they decided, or he decided that 75 would probably be more appropriate, so that they would have equal amounts payable to each other.

Subsequent to that, he had changed that policy that Lyles owned on him, to his ownership, and had named Patricia as the beneficiary. That was in June of '94, that he named Patricia as the beneficiary of the $100,000 that he owned.

Q    Is that the policy that we've previously heard referred to as key man insurance?

A    Right. That's correct.

Q    Now, you said that there was a decision made to go with the $75,000. Were you present for that?

A    Yes. We had a conversation. He decided that that was the amount that would be what they would want to consider.

Q    And was Patricia present for that conversation?

A    Actually, on March the 1st, I went to Lyles Building Supply and met with him for a few minutes before Patricia got there. I think she was to come by and take him to lunch. And we had filled out a little bit of the paperwork,

805

but we needed her signature in a couple of places. And she came in while he and I were talking, to pick him up for lunch.

Q    So when you had the conversation, at which time you came to a conclusion as to the amount of the policy, that was a conversation between you and Theodore Kimble?

A    That was between me and Ted, that's correct.

Q    And you began the paperwork?

A    Right.

Q    And then Patricia came in?

A    That's correct.

Q    What occurred?

A    Ted told her that we needed to get her signature on a couple of forms, a Part 1 and a Part 2. And she said she would not sign the paperwork.

MR. LLOYD: Well, objection, Your Honor. Ask for the instruction previously given.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Again, members of the jury, this evidence may only be considered against this defendant in the event the State has proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt there was a conspiracy and that Ronnie Kimble was a co-conspirator with Ted Kimble.

Proceed.

MR. PANOSH: Yes, sir.

806

Q    I take it as a result of that, no further action was taken in reference to that policy?

A    No. When she would not sign the application, then they were getting ready to go to lunch, and that was the end of the conversation and I left. And we never talked any further about him doing any business with me on Patricia.

MR. PANOSH: No further questions. Thank you.

MR. LLOYD: We don't have any questions of this witness, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Step down, sir.

(The witness left the witness stand.)