THE COURT: Mr. Hatfield, are you ready to proceed?

MR. HATFIELD: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Bring them back.

(The jury entered the courtroom at 11:07 a.m.)

THE COURT: The State call its next witness, please.

MR. PANOSH: Janet Blakley, please. Janet, please - come up.

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

Q    Would you state your name, please.

A    Janet Blakley.

Q    And Ms. Blakley, how are you related to the deceased, Patricia Kimble?

A    She is, from what I understand, my second cousin. My father and Patricia's father are first cousins, and I've

599

always been told she was my second cousin.

Q    And growing up, did you and she know each other?

A    Yes.

Q    And did you live in the same general neighbor?

A    Uh-huh, next door to each other.

Q    And you were approximately the same age as she was?

A    She was, I believe, a few years older than me, three or four years.

Q    Did there come a time when you met Theodore Kimble?

A    Yes, there was.

Q    And how did you meet Theodore Kimble?

A    I met -- Is it okay if I refer to him as Ted?

Q    Sure.

A    Okay. I met Ted my senior year in high school, from my best friend, which was Joy Hedgecock.

Q    And that would have been what year, please?

A    I graduated high school in 1992.

Q    After you met Ted, did you begin to date him?

A    Yes, sometime after that.

Q    And how long did you date Theodore Kimble, Ted Kimble?

A    I dated Ted steadily for right around two years, and then off and on a year and a half after that, so three and a half years altogether.

Q    And during that last portion of the -- your acquaintanceship with him, where were you living?

600

A    I was living at college at Wingate University. That's east of Charlotte.

Q   Did there come a time when you and he stopped seeing each other?

A    Yes, there was.

Q    Would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury when that was, please.

A    It's hard for me to remember, and so -- because it is over such a long span. To the best of my knowledge, I -- we quit seeing each other -- we got engaged, and we quit seeing each other, I believe it was in October of my sophomore year, so that's October of 1993. And we didn't see each other for a while. I started seeing him again that July, after I came back home from school.

Q    That would have been July of what year?

A    Of -- that would be 1994.

Q    And you said just prior to your breaking up, you had been engaged?

A    Yes. We broke off the engagement.

Q    About October of '93?

A    To the best of my knowledge.

Q    Did there come a time when it came to your attention that he was engaged to Patricia Kimble?

A    I was -- it was Thanksgiving -- it was the -- it was Thanksgiving Day at church.

601

Q    Of 1993?

A    What year it was, I -- I'm sorry. I don't know the time. The times all run together.

Q    All right.

A    I know what happened, but -‑

Q    How long after you broke up with him was it that you realized or heard at your church he was engaged to Patricia?

MR. HATFIELD: Objection. She was trying to answer another question.

THE COURT: Overruled.  Proceed.

A    And what was the question again, please?

Q    How long was it after you were engaged and you broke up, did you realize that he was engaged to Patricia, in weeks or months?

A    Okay. We started dating again in July. And he called me two weeks before that Thanksgiving Day and told me he decided to date someone else. And I asked him who, and he told me it was Patricia. And I told him I had -- I had assumed that's who it was. And I showed up at South Elm Street Baptist Church that Sunday, and the pastor of the church announced their engagement. And that's how I found out about them being engaged.

Q    So it was basically within two weeks of your stopping seeing him --

602

A    Uh-huh.

Q    -- that you realized he was engaged?

A    Right.

MR. HATFIELD: Objection. That is not correct. To lead the witness into incorrect statements, I object to.

THE COURT: Well, let her clarify it.

Is that a correct statement, ma'am?

A    What was your question again?

Q    It's basically two weeks after you stopped seeing him that you realized he was engaged to Patricia?

A    I -- he called me at school, at Wingate, and told me he had decided to start dating Patricia. And I went home for Thanksgiving and went to church, and the pastor announced in the church that they were engaged. And that's when I found out about them being engaged.

Q    And the telephone call was how long -- approximately how long before you went home?

A    Approximately two weeks. He called me after that and would still tell me things that -- like he liked me and -‑

MR. HATFIELD: Objection. Outside the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    Did you have further conversations with him?

A    Yes, I did, after that.

Q    And this was after Patricia's engagement?

A    After the engagement? Yes, but brief --

603

Q    Okay.

A    -- brief conversations.

Q    And would you describe those conversations, please.

A    I was -- asked me how I was doing.

MR. LLOYD: Well, objection, Your Honor. I still fail to see the relevance of what this has to do with the trial at hand. It is a hearsay statement. It does not qualify under any of the exceptions that I'm aware of.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    After those telephone contacts that you and he had, did you have further contact with he or Patricia?

A    Yes, yes, I did.

Q    And would you describe that to the jury, please.

A    It was brief conversations with Ted. And Patricia, we went on a retreat, it was at Easter, and I had a chance to speak with her some on that retreat. I tried to talk to her about Ted, and she -‑

MR. HATFIELD: Objection, what she said to –-

THE COURT: Sustained.

A    -- she would not --

THE COURT: Proceed.

A    She would not --

MR. HATFIELD: Objection.

THE COURT: Just don't say what she said. You may tell what she did or what you said or did.

604

THE WITNESS: Okay.

A    I tried to speak to her about Ted and their relationship, in regards to my relationship I had had with Ted.

MR. HATFIELD: Objection. This is completely irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q    Let me ask you this. Were you able to speak to her about that?

A    About Ted?

Q    Yes.

A    She wouldn't listen to me.

MR. HATFIELD: Objection. Move to strike.

A    She would not give -‑

THE COURT: Sustained.

Disregard it, members of the jury.

Q    During the period of time that you and Theodore Kimble were acquainted and you were dating, did he give you any items of jewelry?

MR. HATFIELD: Objection. That's irrelevant.

MR. PANOSH: Try to tie it up real quickly, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A    Yes, he did. He gave me two bracelets, a diamond ring and a necklace.

605

Q    And after you stopped dating, did it come to your attention what became of those items?

MR. HATFIELD: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A    One of the bracelets, he gave to his grandmother. And I have the other bracelet and the diamond ring that he gave me. That's not the engagement ring that he gave me. That's another ring. And I also have the herringbone necklace that he gave me.

MR. HATFIELD: Objection. Move to strike. It's not tied up.

THE COURT: Overruled. Denied.

Q    During the period of time that you and he were together, was -- where was he working?

MR. HATFIELD: Objection. It's not -‑

A    At Lyles Building Material. At Lyles -‑

THE COURT: Overruled.

A    -- Building Material.

Q    And did it come to your attention -- did any unusual events come to your attention during the period of time that you and he were dating?

MR. HATFIELD: Objection. First of all, we don't know what that period of time is, because this witness is completely incapable of even telling the year. And it's irrelevant.

606

THE COURT: Overruled.

Members of the jury, let me caution you about the testimony that relates to Ted Kimble. One of the cases against this defendant is a charge of conspiracy. And the State of North Carolina must satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a conspiracy. And if you find that there was a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, then statements made by a co-conspirator would be evidence that you could consider against this defendant. And so, you must take it in that context, of whether or not the State can satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt whether there was a conspiracy. And if they do not do that, then these statements made by Ted would not be considered by you.

Do you understand that?

(Jurors nodded their head up and down.)

THE COURT: Okay. Proceed.

Q    Would you tell the Court -- the members of the jury about any unusual events during the period of time that you and he were dating.

MR. HATFIELD: Objection. That is a totally improper question.

THE COURT: Overruled.  Proceed.

A    There was several cases, one of which, whenever he was working at Lyles, he was on -- supposed to be on medical

607

leave, and he was in a car accident.

MR. HATFIELD: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A    He was in a car accident. And he was in the process of wanting to collect from an insurance company, and also working for Gary Lyles, the owner of Lyles Building Material.

MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, could we be heard outside the presence of the jury?

THE COURT: Members of the jury, step out a moment, please. Remember the instructions.

(The jury left the courtroom at 11:20 a.m.)

THE COURT: All right, sir.

MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, in the first place, I have tried to take as careful notes as possible, and I would say to the Court that this witness has no idea whether she's talking about events in 1993 or 1994 or any other time.

THE COURT: Well, what's the basis of your objection to this testimony about him making an --

MR. HATFIELD: She is -‑

THE COURT: -- accident claim?

MR. HATFIELD: She is going to tell that he made a claim for property damage. She has no specific information. I can't imagine what relevance that would have, either to his case or to Ronnie Kimble's case.

608

THE COURT: Is that the basis of your objection, sir?

MR. HATFIELD: Also, it has no relevance to any potential conspiracy that the State may be trying to establish, because if you ask her -- if you have a momentary voir dire now and ask her if Ronnie Kimble in any way was involved in any of this, the answer will be no. So it doesn't show a course of conduct. It doesn't show a pattern. It doesn't lead to the proof of a conspiracy. It's remote in time. It's not relevant. And its prejudicial effect is very likely to outweigh -- I don't think it has any probative value, but if it does, if I just am blind and can't see, and if it does have probative value, then I would say that its prejudicial effect outweighs that. This is -- they -- this lady doesn't like this man, because she didn't get to marry him. And she wants to come in here and smear him. And if it were his trial, I wouldn't be addressing the Court, but it's Ronnie Kimble's trial, and Ronnie Kimble, as she will tell you in a voir dire, has nothing to do with any of this.

THE COURT: How is it relevant, Mr. Panosh?

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, she's going to tell about three specific incidents of insurance fraud which she observed of her own -- directly observed. Your Honor, it's relevant, because the conspiracy here is to kill Patricia

609

Kimble and to get the insurance money. This shows a pattern of conduct on the part of Ted, which is part -- as we've indicated, we have to show the motive and the ability of Ted to conceive this crime, if we're going to convict Ronnie.

THE COURT: What are the three instances she's going to testify about, sir?

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, she's already talked about him working when he was trying to claim that he was disabled. And she's going to talk about the fact that she was present and observed Ted Kimble purposely damage an Isuzu, by making large scratches on the truck and then filing an insurance claim. Stated that he wanted to damage the Isuzu because he wanted the insurance company to reimburse him, because he wanted a new paint job. She indicated to him that that was wrong and that he did it anyway and it didn't seem to bother him.

Also, during the course of their relationship, he purchased a Chevrolet Camaro and stated that the -- he reported the stereo equipment stolen from that, when in fact, it wasn't stolen, and after the insurance settlement, he subsequently reinstalled the equipment. And she was told and has personal knowledge that he broke into his own vehicle and removed the stereo equipment while it was stationary at the parking lot of Lyles, and thereafter, as I said, he submitted an insurance claim.

610

MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, before you decide, could I just say one thing about that?

THE COURT: Well, let Mr. Panosh finish first –-

MR. HATFIELD: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: -- and then I'll hear you, sir.

MR. HATFIELD: I thought --

THE COURT: Anything else, Mr. Panosh?

MR. PANOSH: Yes. Thereafter, that same vehicle was sold to another individual, Mr. Scott Shepherd, and there was a subsequent conduct on the part of Kimble and Shepherd in removing the stereo equipment again and claiming insurance again.

As long as we're in a voir dire, Your Honor, I'll tell you that we also intend to elicit from her that Theodore Kimble told her that he was aware of the fact that Lyles, that is, Gary Lyles, would never sell the business to him unless and until he got married. And that goes into the fact that shortly after he breaks up, he gets engaged -- after he breaks up with this young lady, he gets engaged to Patricia, and immediately thereafter, is able to purchase the business, because he can now say that he is married and has a stable home life.

MR. HATFIELD: May I address before --

THE COURT: Wait just a minute and see is he finished, before you start.

611

Mr. Lyles is going to be a witness in this case?

MR. PANOSH: Yes, sir. This afternoon.

THE COURT: Is this testimony going to be offered for the purpose of corroborating his testimony, about him not willing to sell the business until Kimble had married?

MR. PANOSH: Mr. Lyles will say that that was his feelings, that he doesn't recall ever specifically telling Ted Kimble that, but that it was a fact.

THE COURT: Now, Mr. Hatfield.

MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, now that we know that she is going to offer that piece of hearsay on the part of Mr. --

MR. PANOSH: It's not hearsay.

MR. HATFIELD: -- Kimble --

MR. PANOSH: It's a statement of co-conspirator.

MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, it's not a statement a co-conspirator, because it's irrelevant and totally unrelated to any conspiracy that they are endeavoring to prove. It also is highly speculative. Mr. Lyles has been asked repeatedly about this by the investigators, and every time he's been asked, he's given a slightly different answer.

It is not clear that Ted Kimble set out upon a conspiracy that included the following: Number 1, to lure an unsuspecting woman like Patricia into marriage; Number 2,

612

to then use that marriage to allow him to buy Lyles Building Supply; Number 3, to put insurance on her life; and Number 4, to kill her, so that he would be able to own the business and be free again. That's not the conspiracy they're trying to prove.

So Mr. Lyles' speculation or his vague feeling that he would feel better about selling his business to Theodore Kimble if Theodore Kimble were married has nothing to do with furtherance of the conspiracy. And her vague feeling that Ted told her that his reason for marrying Patricia Blakley was not love, but was to induce Gary Lyles to sell him the business, is also not furtherance of the conspiracy, unless and until Mr. Panosh can show that Theodore Kimble formed the intention to kill Patricia before he even married her. And I don't think that they believe that, and I don't think they have any proof of it, and I don't think it's part of the conspiracy.

So, all this is, is a woman scorned, who now wishes to say bad things about Theodore Kimble. And that's her privilege. But she shouldn't be able to say them in Ronnie Kimble's trial, when they are irrelevant and they are hearsay. And they're not "not hearsay" because they're statements of a conspirator, because whatever Ted's intentions with regard to Patricia and marriage, there's no evidence that he had formulated a conspiracy with Ronnie

613

Kimble to kill her. There's not even any evidence that he had secretly in his own heart wanted to kill her.

This is exactly the kind of evidence that shouldn't come in. And especially when you consider that the source cannot document anything she's saying.

And to go to the insurance stuff, she now wants to tell you, or the jury, that she knows about these various schemes to collect insurance. But there's no documentation to support any of that. It's just as possible that she misunderstood the situation.

And Ted's propensity to break the law and to be dishonest is also not in furtherance of this particular conspiracy in any way, shape or form, Your Honor. This is -- they just want to make Ted Kimble look bad, and they want to let this woman who doesn't like him come in here and use her bad feelings toward him to advance the case against Ronnie Kimble. But it has nothing to do with any agreement that the State will ever hope to prove between Ted Kimble and Ronnie Kimble.

So we really would hope that the Court will simply let her tell the limited story that she can tell about her knowledge of Patricia and Ted's relationship within the scope that the Court has already established, and then let her step down.

(Time was allowed for the Court.)

614

THE COURT: Okay. The Court's going to -- Do you wish to be heard?

MR. PANOSH: The only thing I want to say is, Your Honor, there have been a number of witnesses. They have been able to elicit from them the outward appearance of this loving relationship between Patricia and Theodore Kimble, and we should be allowed to put on evidence to rebut that.

THE COURT: The Court's going to overrule the objection, find that the evidence is being offered for the purpose of showing a plan, motive or design for the ability of pattern of conduct -- or the ability to carry out a pattern of conduct, and would find that the probative value outweighs any prejudicial value that might be attached to the testimony.

Bring them back.

(The jury entered the courtroom at 11:31 a.m.)

THE COURT: Okay. Again, members of the jury, I would instruct you that one of the charges against Ronnie Kimble is a charge of conspiracy. These statements made by Ted Kimble are being offered for the purpose of -- in regards to that conspiracy. The State has to satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt there was a conspiracy. And if the State meets that burden, then you may consider these statements made by Ted Kimble, if you find that they were in furtherance of the conspiracy. If you find that there was

615

no conspiracy, or if you find that these statements are not relevant for that purpose, then you would disregard them and not consider these statements made by Ted Kimble.

Do you understand that?

(Jurors nodded their head up and down.)

THE COURT: Okay. Proceed.

CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION by MR. PANOSH:

Q    Ma'am, you started to answer a question, about the fact that --

MR. HATFIELD: Objection. Ask that he just –-

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. HATFIELD: -- renew it.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Proceed.

Q    Well, let me restate the question. What, if any, unusual events occurred during the time that you and Ted Kimble were dating?

MR. HATFIELD: Objection. It's way too broad.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Proceed.

A    I was speaking about him being in an accident, Ted Kimble being in an accident, and he was working for Gary Lyles, at Lyles Building Material. And he was supposed to be on disability, from the doctor's orders. He was supposed to be out of work. And he was working for Gary anyway. He

616

was doing this in the case to --

MR. HATFIELD: Objection to what he was –-

THE COURT: Overruled.

A    He was doing this in the case to have money, you know, now, to pay his bills, and to go on with his life, but also to collect a larger sum of money from the insurance company later down the road, whenever he settled with the insurance company from the accident.

Q    Were there further incidents?

A    He -- also one evening, he parked his car outside of Lyles Building Material --

THE WITNESS: May I have some water, please?

THE COURT: Yes, you may.

(The bailiff handed a cup of water to the witness, and time was allowed for the witness.)

A    Okay. One evening, he parked his car, it was a Camaro, a white Camaro, and he explained to me what he was -- his intentions were. And what he did is, he rolled the window down on the driver's side, just enough to fit his fingertips in. And he told me that he was going to steal the stereo equipment out of his own car, in order to get reimbursed for better stereo equipment out of his own car. And what he did -- I didn't actually see him do it --

MR. HATFIELD: Object and ask that she not be permitted to tell any more about this fantasy. She saw

617

nothing, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is it based on what you saw, ma'am, or what he told you?

THE WITNESS: I saw, after the stereo equipment was stolen, he brought me back into the car and showed me what he did.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Proceed.

A    He -- after -- as I was telling the judge, he did not let me be present there, and I didn't want to be. After he broke the window, he put his fingers in and broke the window out of the driver's side door. And he pulled the radio out of the car and cut the wires, as well as the woofers, the base speakers in the back of the car, the Iroc, and cut the wires there, too.

He -- as he was showing me, he explained to me exactly what he did. And later, after he reported it to the insurance company, he placed some of the stereo equipment back in the car.

There was also another time where he was at -- when he was living at his trailer on Hemphill Road, which is in Julian --

MR. HATFIELD: Object, Your Honor. And just briefly, couldn’t we ask her to show the time frame to some

618

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HATFIELD: -- extent.

THE COURT: Lay a foundation, Mr. Panosh, as to time.

Q    Do you know approximately what year this was, this incident that you're relating that when he was living in Julian in his trailer?

A    The year was 1992.

Q    And do you know if it was summertime or wintertime or

A    There were still leaves on the trees.

Q    It was in the autumn then?

A    As to whether the leaves had started turning or not -­I know -- I know there -- it was still pleasant outside.

Q    So late summer or --

A    Uh-huh.

Q    -- early fall --

A    Uh-huh.

Q    -- of 1992?

A    Uh-huh.

Q    Would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what happened, when he was living at that residence in Julian.

A    Yes. He scratched -- had a little scratch on the front part of his truck, where he had ran under the little shed

619

that he parked the vehicle under. And he proceeded to take a key and scratch all the sides of the truck and the hood, in order to collect from the insurance company again the money to have the whole truck painted, so he wouldn't have that small scratch on his vehicle.

Q    Were there further incidents?

A    There was another instance of planned theft, with another gentleman. His name was Scott Shepherd.

MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, I can't hear her. I'm sorry.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: A little bit louder --

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: -- please, Ms. Blakley.

A    There was also another instance of theft with Scott Shepherd. Scott Shepherd had just sold his vehicle. It was a black -- it was either a Camaro, Iroc, Firebird. It was -- it was a sports car. And the gentleman that Scott sold the car to wanted to keep the stereo equipment in the car. Scott sold him this -- the car with the stereo equipment in the car, and Scott kept one of the remotes, the battery-operated remotes to the vehicle, because he still wanted the stereo equipment out.

He told Ted about the -- what he wanted to do, and Ted agreed to go with Scott and take the stereo equipment out of

620

the car. The car was parked right outside of the gentleman's girlfriend's house. They -- Scott unlocked the car, and Ted stole all the stuff out of the car. And he -­Ted actually ended up putting part of the speakers back in the car that he stole from this other gentleman. That was part of the agreement between Scott and Ted, that Ted would get part of the stuff and Scott would get part of it.

Q    During the period of time that you were dating him, and especially during the period of time that you and he were engaged, what, if anything, did he tell you in reference to his plans regarding Lyles Building Supply?

MR. HATFIELD: Objection.

MR. LLOYD: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Don't answer.

Q    Don't answer that right now.

A    Oh, okay.

Q    Did there come a time when you learned any information in regard to his plans in regard to Lyles?

MR. HATFIELD: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Members of the jury, this testimony is being offered for purpose of corroborating the testimony of a later witness. It'll be for you to say and determine whether it does in fact so corroborate that witness's

621

testimony. It's not being offered for the truth or falsity of the statement, but whether in fact there was such a statement made.

MR. HATFIELD: Would you also give an instruction on conspiracy, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

Again, remember that the testimony of this witness related in regard to the statements made or conduct by Ted Kimble may not be considered against Ronnie Kimble, unless you find that the State has proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a conspiracy, and that this -- these statements were part of a design or pattern or motive to commit those types of offenses, or the ability to commit those type -- that type offense.

Proceed.

Q    You can answer the question.

A    Can you repeat it, please.

Q    Okay. Did there come a time when you learned about his -- Theodore Kimble's plans in reference to Lyles?

A    Yes, there was.

Q    Would you tell the jury about that, please.

A    Yes. Ted had worked for Lyles Building Material for quite some time. And Lyles had told Ted that he wanted to further Ted, also, and at one time give Ted the business -­or actually sell it to him. And Gary encouraged highly for

622

Ted to get married. He felt that if Ted were married, it would --

MR. HATFIELD: Objection. He might be able to –­

THE COURT: Sustained to what he --

MR. HATFIELD: Thank you.

THE COURT: -- may have felt.

Q    During the period of time that Theodore Kimble was dating Patricia, and up until the time of the marriage, what, if anything, did you notice about her?

MR. HATFIELD: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HATFIELD: Unless they specify what time frame that was.

THE COURT: Establish a time frame, Mr. Panosh.

MR. PANOSH: Yes, sir.

Q    From the time that you learned that Ted Kimble was dating Patricia, up until the time of their marriage in May of '94, what, if anything, did you notice about her?

A    I was not aware that he was dating her --

MR. HATFIELD: Objection.

A    -- before they got married.

MR. HATFIELD: That's it.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    From the point that you were aware that they were married, what did you notice?

623

A    Can you explain?

Q    About Patricia physically.

A    To the point before they were married, what did I notice?

Q    During that period of time, yes.

MR. HATFIELD: Objection. I think he asked her after they were married.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    Did there come a time when you noticed certain changes in Patricia?

MR. HATFIELD: Objection. He's already said the time frame.

THE COURT: Overruled.  Answer.

A    There was a time where Ted moved in with Patricia on a roommate basis, for pay, to help her, as far as, she actually collected rent from him. And he needed a place to live. And so, they moved in -- he moved in with her on a roommate basis. And that's all I was ever told it was, until several months down the road, and then I was told that he was seeing her.

MR. HATFIELD: Objection.

MR. LLOYD: Well, objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    Without stating what you were told --

624

A    Okay.

Q    -- did there come a time when you noticed that -­certain physical changes about Patricia?

A    Physical changes, as in --

MR. HATFIELD: Objection.

Q    Appearance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A    Appearance. She -- when Ted first met her, she was quite overweight. And he --

MR. HATFIELD: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    All right.

A    She was --

THE COURT: Don't answer, ma'am.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

Q    You can stop, please.

MR. PANOSH: No further questions. Thank you, ma'am.

CROSS-EXAMINATION by MR. HATFIELD:

Q    Was it your testimony that you were a senior in high school in 1992?

A    Yes, it is.

Q    Do you remember what year you graduated from high school? Was that June of 1992 or May of 1992?

A    It was May of 1992.

625

Q    And during your senior year in high school, were you dating Ted?

A    Uh-huh. Yes.

Q    Did you consider him to be a steady boyfriend at that time?

A    Yes, I did.

Q    So, even though you were a senior in high school, this was what you would call a serious relationship?

A    Uh-huh.

Q    Did you at that time plan on going to college?

A    Yes, I did.

Q    And did you plan on going to college outside of the Greensboro area?

A    Uh-huh. Yes.

Q    So you knew in 1992 that you would be moving some distance away to attend college; is that right?

A    Yes.

Q    Had you decided what college you wanted to go to?

A    Yes.

Q    So you already knew it was Wingate?

A    Uh-huh.

Q    When you -- did you go to college in September of 1992 and begin your school year then, right after high school?

A    Yes.

Q    While you were at Wingate, did you continue to date

626

Ted?

A    Yes.

Q    Even though you were -- how far is Wingate from Greensboro?

A    It's two hours.

Q    Did he come to visit you there?

A    Yes, he did.

Q    And did you consider yourself to be still more or less going steady with him?

A    Uh-huh. Yes.

Q    Now, you said that in 1992, while the leaves were on the trees, that Ted had a scratch on his truck; is that right?

A    Yes.

Q    So that would have been either the summer or the fall of 1992?

A    Uh-huh.

Q    And that was the summer and fall between your graduation from high school and your commencement at Wingate in probably September of 1992; is that right?

A    Yes.

Q    So were you already at Wingate when the incident involving the scratch on the truck took place?

A    I can't remember.

Q    Now, you say that he accidentally damaged his truck,

627

because he ran into a shed of some sort?

A    Yes, he did.

Q    Were you with him when that happened?

A    Yes, I was.

Q    Was it truly an accident?

A    Yes, it was.

Q    And then, was that a -- what kind of vehicle was that?

A    It was a blue Isuzu truck.

Q    Was it brand new?

A    He purchased it new.

Q    When?

A    Right after he wrecked his Conquest.

Q    Did he make an insurance collection on the wreck of his Conquest?

A    Yes, he did.

Q    That accident was not his fault in any way, was it?

A    He had two accidents in the Conquest. One was his fault, and one, someone else hit him.

Q    The second accident that -- in which the car was total loss, was not his fault, was it?

A    No, it wasn't.

Q    So, Ted, while you were a senior in high school, wrecked his Conquest through the fault of another driver and collected the insurance proceeds for that, didn't he?

A    He had already wrecked it enough to total it, and he

628

was still driving it.

Q    And then there was another wreck?

A    And then there was another wreck. And that's when he went ahead and totaled it out.

Q    And the insurance company paid that claim, didn't they?

A    Yes, they did.

Q    And you did not feel that Ted had engaged in any wrongdoing in that, did you?

A    No, he didn't.

Q    And with the proceeds from the insurance company of the final wreck of the Conquest, he bought the Isuzu truck?

A    Yes.

Q    And then, through no fault of his own, he scratched the hood in your presence; is that right?

A    Yes, he did.

Q    And then you say that he put other scratches on the vehicle, so he could get a new paint job; is that right?

A    Yes.

Q    Did you see him do that?

A    Yes.

Q    Did you tell him not to?

A    He did it. He was just -- he just did it.

Q    But I didn't ask you what he did. You've already said that. I asked you what you did. Did you tell him not to?

A    No, I didn't.

629

Q    Did you tell him that's morally wrong?

A    No, I didn't.

Q    Now, do you -- were you at Wingate College when the insurance company made its arrangements with Ted concerning that?

A    I don't recall.

Q    Did you go with Ted to the insurance adjuster, to talk about those scratches on the car?

A    No, I did not.

Q    Were you involved with him in any way when he notified the insurance company?

A    No, I did not. No, I wasn't.

Q    Now, when did he finally repaint the Isuzu?

A    When he got permission from the insurance company to do so.

Q    And when was that?

A    After the time he'd scratched the vehicle.

Q    You were off at college, weren't you?

A    I've already told you, I don't know.

Q    So later on, you noticed that his Isuzu was freshly painted; is that correct?

A    Yes.

Q     And you just assumed that the insurance company paid for the paint job, didn't you?

A    I did not assume that. That's what was explained to

630

me.

Q    So Ted told you that the insurance company agreed to repaint it?

A    Yes.

Q    Do you know whether the insurance company would have agreed to repaint it, just based on the scratch on the hood?

A    They wouldn't have agreed to paint the whole entire truck.

Q    Did you talk to him about that?

A    No, I did not.

Q Now, before you told the jury about the Isuzu truck in 1992, you told the jury about Ted in your presence planning to park his car at Lyles Building Supply, rolling the window down slightly, pulling the window out of the window frame of the door, and reaching in and taking the stereo and cutting the wires, didn't you?

A    Yes, I did.

Q    Now, in relationship to the summer of 1992, when you graduated from high school and went off to Wingate College in the fall, when did that happen?

A    It happened after the incident with his truck.

Q    So you were already off at Wingate at that time; is that right?

A    Yes, I was.

Q    Were you home on a vacation?

631

A    I cannot recall whether I was home on a vacation or whether -- as far as a college break, or whether I was just home for the weekend.

Q    Well, maybe you weren't home at all? Maybe you just heard about this?

A    No. I -- I was present.

Q    Did you consider him to be your boyfriend when this happened?

A    Yes, I did.

Q    Did you still consider him to be your steady boyfriend?

A    Yes, I did.

Q    So you already knew, from the events involving the Isuzu truck, that Ted was capable of dishonesty, didn't you?

A    Yes.

Q    And then, at some time that you can't remember, you say that he intentionally took a stereo out of his car, in your -- with your knowledge; is that right?

A    Yes, he did.

Q    And you understood that he was dishonest about that; is that right?

A    Uh-huh. Yes.

Q    Now, did you hear him communicate with any insurance adjusters about getting another stereo?

A    No, I did not.

Q    Did you hear him talk to any police officers about

632

filing a report for malicious damage to property or theft? A    No, I did not.

Q    So he did not in your presence take any steps to collect anything for that stereo, did he?

A    Not in my presence.

Q    And you were spending at least nine months a year off at Wingate College, weren't you?

A    Approximately.

Q    Weren't you? Well, didn't you go --

A    Uh-huh.

Q    Didn't you graduate from Wingate?

A    Yes, I did.

Q    Four years?

A    Actually, five.

Q    Did you subsequently -- what kind of vehicle was this, a white Camaro?

A    Yes.

Q    Do you remember what year it was?

A    No, I don't remember the year. It was an Iroc.

Q    Was it something that he obtained after he got rid of the Isuzu truck?

A    Yes. He totaled the Isuzu truck from falling asleep.

Q    I'm sorry. People are coughing.

A    Okay.

Q    He totaled --

633

A    He totaled the Isuzu truck from falling asleep, and that's when he got the Iroc.

Q    Was he given an insurance settlement for the Isuzu truck?

A    I don't remember.

Q    In any event, the destruction of the Isuzu truck in an accident was not the result of any intentional behavior on his part, was it?

A    Correct.

Q    And you don't know whether he was able to get insurance for that?

A    I don't know. I can make assumptions, but he didn't really -- I don't know.

Q    But he was your steady boyfriend, wasn't he?

A    Yes.

Q    You were going steady?

A    Uh-huh.

Q    Do you know how he managed to purchase this Iroc?

A    Other than making assumptions, no.

Q    No?

A    Other than --

Q    Other than --

A    Other than making the assumptions.

Q    Now, you stated that during the period of time that Ted Kimble was working for Gary Lyles, he had an accident; is

634

that right? This is related to the disability?

A    Uh-huh. Yes.

Q    What kind of -- was that one of the automobile accidents that you've already described?

A    That was the accident with the Conquest, that where someone had hit him, and it was a -- a no fault accident to him.

Q    It was -- in other words, it was not Ted's fault?

A    Correct.

Q    Now, this would have taken place before the Isuzu and before the Camaro Iroc?

A    Yes.

Q    And the Isuzu was in his possession the summer you graduated from high school, which was 1992; is that right?

A    Yes.

Q    So the Conquest was a car that he had while you were still a high school student in Guilford County?

A    Yes.

Q    And the Conquest was wrecked through no fault of Ted's; is that right?

A    The second time, yes.

Q    And you're saying that he collected disability?

A    Uh-huh.

Q    From whom did he collect disability?

A    He sued the person that hit him in the accident, to --

635

Q    Did he win that suit?

A    Yes, he did.

Q    So he didn't collect disability, he tried to collect damages from the person who caused the accident; is that right?

A    Yes, that's -- that would be a more correct answer.

Q    Well, you understand that in normal speech, the word "disability" suggests payments through the Social Security system, for people's inability to work through no fault of their own? Don't you understand that?

MR. PANOSH: Object, please.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    What do you understand disability to be?

A    Disability would be what you had just said, through the -- through the Social Security system.

Q    So when you said "disability" a little while ago, that was not what you meant, was it?

A    That's correct.

Q    That's correct? I'm correct?

A    I -- when I spoke of disability, I was speaking of him having to sue another individual for the accident that he had had in his Conquest, to collect a sum of money off of that.

Q    Now, was that suit handled by a lawyer?

A    Yes, it was.

636

Q    Did you have any participation in discussions with the lawyer?

A    No. I felt like that wasn't my business.

Q    And you were just a high school girl at that time, weren't you?

A    Yes, I was.

Q    This was no concern of yours, was it?

A    It wasn't my business.

Q    Now, what you're really telling this jury is, is that after he was injured, through no fault of his own, and that car was demolished by another driver, that he continued to work at Gary Lyles' business, right?

A    Yes, he did.

Q    Now, Gary Lyles knew that Ted had been in the accident, didn't he?

A    Yes, he did.

Q    Everybody that knew Ted knew he'd been in the accident; isn't that right?

A    I can't answer for everybody else.

Q    But in any event, what you're saying is, is that you think that he had his lawyer try to collect for lost wages, when in fact he was working? That's what you really mean, isn't it?

A    That's correct.

Q    And you think that's dishonest, don't you?

637

A    Well, making a statement that is not true, I consider dishonest.

Q    But you never heard him make a statement concerning that, did you?

A    He just explained to me what he was doing. I physically did not hear that.

Q    So what did he tell you he was doing?

A    He explained to me that he was working for Gary Lyles, while he was suing this other individual, and making it appear that he was actually not able to work.

Q    So Gary was paying him under the table, wasn't he?

MR. PANOSH: We object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    He was receiving cash from Gary, but he wasn't on the books; isn't that what you understood it to be?

A    Yes, I did.

Q    So Gary was just as equally to blame as Ted, wasn't he?

MR. PANOSH: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q    Gary had just as much knowledge of this as Ted did, didn't he?

A    Yes.

Q    And so did you?

A    I was brought into it, yes.

Q    Did you tell your mom and dad about that?

638

A    I cannot recall whether I did or not.

Q    And yet, after these three specific acts of dishonesty, in your opinion, you still continued to go steady with him, didn't you?

A    Yes, I did.

Q    Now, you say that somebody named Scott Shepherd was also dishonest, wasn't he?

A    Yes, he was.

Q    Is there any way that you could tell us when this incident with Scott Shepherd happened?

A    All I can tell you is, is it was during the summer. Whether I was on -- in between college, or whether I was on a break from my college classes, or whether I was in between high school and college. As I say, I know it happened during the summer.

Q    But you told us that he had this Iroc during the interim between your graduation from high school and your commencement at Wingate, didn't you?

A    But he didn't steal the -- the one that involved Scott Shepherd was out of Scott Shepherd's car that --

Q    So that was another one? Okay. Sorry. Go ahead. didn't mean to interrupt you.

A    That was -- the stuff that was stolen out of Scott's -- that dealt with Scott Shepherd was out of a car that Scott had sold to another gentleman.

639

Q    So that was another Iroc altogether, it's just a coincidence Ted had an Iroc at one time, but what you're talking about is Scott Shepherd's Iroc?

A    I don't know whether it was an Iroc or Firebird or Camaro. I just know it was a sports car.

Q    Some kind of a sporty --

A    Right.

Q    -- American production car?

A    Right.

Q    And it belonged to Scott; is that right?

A    Yes.

Q    Now, you said that Scott had agreed with another person to sell him the Iroc; is that right?

A    Scott, yes, had sold the Iroc to another individual.

Q    But Scott kept --

A    Or it wasn't an Iroc. I don't know what it was, but as far as a Firebird, Camaro or Iroc.

Q    But Scott kept the remote-control device that would -­what would that do, change the stations?

A    No. It was a remote control to unlock the doors and for the security system on the car.

Q    So when he turned the car over to another buyer, he just kept the way of getting in and out of the car in his own possession?

A    There were two remotes.

640

Q    He kept one of them?

A    He just -- he just kept one of the remotes.

Q    So, now, he could go and open the car anytime he wanted to, and presumably the person who bought it from him didn't know?

A    Correct.

Q    This was Scott's dishonesty, wasn't it?

A    Yes.

Q    But you say that at some point, Ted agreed to assist Scott in, after the car had been transferred to another owner, and going over there and stealing back some of the equipment out of it; is that right?

A    Yes.

Q    Were you there when this happened?

A    I was not present when they stole the materials out of the car.

Q    You just heard them talking about it?

A    Ted showed me the materials that they had received out of the car.

Q    And were you a student at Wingate at that time?

A    I just know it was during the summer. I can't tell you whether I was a student or not.

Q    All right. Anyway, you -- did you continue to go to Wingate each semester as the normal years unfold, and you stayed there; you didn't have any interruptions in your

641

college experience?

A    No, I did not.

Q    And you continued to date Ted until October of 1993; is that right?

A    It was October of my sophomore year, so that would be 1993.

Q    And at that point in time, you were actually engaged to be married to him; is that correct?

A    Uh-huh.

Q    So, even though you knew about all these instances of dishonesty, none of that deterred you from your desire to marry him in the future, did it?

A    No, it did not.

Q    And never, not one time, did you tell him not to do those things, did you?

A    I questioned him, as far as stealing the materials out of--

Q    Did you ever say to him, "Ted --"

MR. PANOSH: May she finish, please?

THE COURT: Finish your answer.

MR. HATFIELD: I'm not intentionally interrupting her.

THE COURT: All right. Let her finish.

A    I questioned him, as far as him stealing the material out of -- out of the vehicles, the stereo equipment out of

642

the vehicles.

Q    So the one way that he finally seemed to have gone over the hill, in your opinion, was this business with this Scott Shepherd individual; is that right?

A    It wasn't just the business with Scott Shepherd. It was stealing material out of -- out of his car, as well as Scott's. I questioned him and we spoke about it, and had pretty much decided not to -- not to -- he had decided not to further that part of the theft. And then he said, just one last time with Scott. And then he decided not to do it again. And that to my knowledge is all that I know about it.

Q    So he reformed?

A    To my knowledge, that's what he had explained to me, and we had spoke about, that he wasn't going to steal the equipment out of vehicles anymore.

Q    Do you know when it was that he told you that he was going to quit stealing?

A    It was an ongoing thing. It was more than one time that he told me he was going to quit.

Q    Did you believe him?

A    Yes, I did.

Q    And so, you continued to be engaged to him, until October of '93?

A    Correct.

643

Q    And what caused you to stop dating him in October of '93?

A    We had decided that things just were not working out, as far as a long-distance relationship.

Q    He had his girlfriends back in Greensboro, and you had your admirers up in Wingate, right?

MR. PANOSH: We'd object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A    I can't make assumptions about his girlfriends. I didn't know.

Q    Well, then, what was the reason that you and he decided to break up? You told us about it earlier.

A    He had -- the reason we decided to break up was because we weren't able to see each other and communicate with each other on a daily basis, and it made it hard on the relationship. And that's the reason we broke the relationship off in October.

Q    But then again, when you got home in the summertime in '94, there you were back with him again, weren't you?

A    I came back in May, and I was determined not to see him. And July was -- I had -- I had just by chance ran into him, and he said, "Well, let's just go out one time, one last time." And that one last time ended up, I started seeing him again.

Q    And you believe that was July of 1994?

644

A    Uh-huh. Yes.

Q    And then, in November of 1994, according to your testimony, you found out at church that he was engaged to marry Patricia; is that right?

A    Yes. Thanksgiving Day.

Q    And that hurt your feelings deeply, didn't it?

A    I was upset. I didn't understand the logics behind why would he start seeing her, when I felt like he still loved me.

Q    And you loved him, didn't you?

A    Yes, I did love him at one time.

Q    You loved him then, didn't you?

A    Yes, I did.

Q    And you felt that she was an unattractive, plain girl, and you couldn't understand why he would prefer her to you; isn't that right?

A    I never said that she was unattractive or plain.

Q    But you couldn't understand why he preferred her to you, could you?

A    The reasoning behind the time frame, I did not understand.

Q    Did you subsequently learn that he in fact married her in December of that year?

A    It was sometime after that, that I had learned. Actually, I believe I learned about that after her death.

645

Q    That really made you mad, didn't it?

A    No, it didn't make me mad. He had tried to do the same thing to me.

Q    But then, in fact, when you found out when they were really married, you realized that he had been calling you up and leading you on, while he was in fact legally married to Patricia; isn't that right?

A    No.

Q    You didn't know that?

A    He didn't call me after -- he called me two or three times after he told me he had started dating Patricia.

Q    But after that --

A    And then --

Q    -- you went to church on Thanksgiving Day, and the pastor announced the engagement, he still called you up, didn't he?

A    No, he didn't.

MR. HATFIELD: Thank you very much, Your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION by MR. PANOSH:

Q    When you said, "He tried to do the same thing to me," what did you mean?

A    He tried to get me to marry him secretively, and I wouldn't do it, because I felt that he would make me quit school and come home to live with him. I wanted to finish my education. I felt like that was very valuable. And I

646

told him, if he really loved me, that he would wait to marry me, until I finished school.

MR. PANOSH: No further.

MR. HATFIELD: Nothing further. Thank you.

THE COURT: You may step down, Ms. Blakley.

MR. PANOSH: Ms. Murray, please.

THE COURT: Wait just a minute.

Step down, ma'am.

(The witness left the witness stand.)

THE COURT: Members of the jury, as to this witness's testimony, the Court again wants to admonish you that you should consider this evidence only if the State of North Carolina has satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a conspiracy, that Ted and Ronnie were co-conspirators, and this evidence would be only considered for the purposes of determining the pattern of conduct or motive or ability to carry out the conspiracy.