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

Q    State your name, please.

A    I'm Kimberly Murray.

Q    And did you know Ted Kimble for a period of time in the '92 to '93 range?

A    Yes, I did.

Q    And at that time, you were Kimberly Palmer; is that

647

correct?

A    Yes.

Q    Would you explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury how you met Ted Kimble.

A    I met him at South Elm Street Baptist Church in the singles group.

Q    When was that?

A    Winter 1991, 1992.

Q    Okay. And after you met him, did there come a time when -- first of all, did you know Patricia Blakley at that time?

A    Yes, I did.

Q    How did you know Patricia?

A    Patricia and I were in church together, and we had a very close relationship. We were prayer partners.

Q    Did there come a time when it came to your attention that Patricia was dating Ted Kimble? Or let me ask it this way.

MR. HATFIELD: Objection. He's asked a perfectly good question, and she's trying to answer it.

THE COURT: Well, she's not answered it. He can rephrase it.

You may rephrase it, sir.

Q    Did there come a time when you started to date Ted Kimble?

648

A    Yes.

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

A    The end of February 1993, into May of 1993.

Q    And at that time, where were you living?

A    Cinnamon Ridge Apartments.

Q    And at that time, were you friends with Patricia?

A    Very close friends.

Q    And at that time, was she part of the management there?

A    She was the manager.

Q    And how was it that you started to date Ted Kimble?

A    There can be a little explanation here. I don't know how much to say up front. We began dating when he persistently -- after he persistently asked me to go out with him.

Q    And at that time, were you aware whether or not he had a relationship with Patricia Blakley?

A    Only as friends, was my understanding.

Q    And before you started dating him, did you have a discussion with Patricia Blakley?

A    Several.

Q    And what were those discussions about?

MR. LLOYD: Well, objection, Your Honor.

Q    Without stating what she said, what were those discussions about?

649

MR. LLOYD: Well, Judge --

THE COURT: Well, sustained.

MR. LLOYD: -- I question the relevancy of –

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. LLOYD: -- of all this testimony.

THE COURT: Members of the jury, you may go ahead and take your lunch break. Be back at 2:00 o'clock. Remember the instructions the Court has previously given you with the jury responsibility sheet.

(The jury left the courtroom at 12:17 p.m.)

THE COURT: All right. The Court's at a disadvantage. I don't know what the witness is going to say, Mr. Panosh. What's her testimony going to be?

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, her testimony is going to be that during approximately the same time frame he was trying to secretly marry the last witness, Janet Blakley, was dating her, and asked her to marry him. And this --

THE COURT: How does this fit in with the conspiracy theory, ability or motive or pattern of conduct?

MR. PANOSH: It doesn't fit into that.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. PANOSH: It fits into --

THE COURT: How is it relevant then?

MR. PANOSH: It shows that Ted Kimble is looking for someone to marry him, so that he can get this business.

650

It shows that the loving relationship that they try to bring out was not in fact what it appeared to be. This man was just looking for anyone he could find to marry him, so that he could move on and get this business. And as I said, this occurred shortly after she says no to him, there's the announcement of the engagement to Patricia. Then she has some observations about what Ted did after the death of Patricia.

THE COURT: Well, what are those observations going to be? I mean, while the jury's out, I need to know.

MR. PANOSH: That shortly after the death of Patricia, he started dating a young lady by the name of Rhonda and gave Patricia's jewelry to Rhonda; that shortly after the death, he talked about and did purchase an expensive motorcycle and a motorcycle helmet. And that ties into what he did with the money that he collected from the church, after her death.

MR. HATFIELD: If Your Honor please, with all due respect to this lady -- and I do not wish to be offensive -­some men find it advantageous to make women think they're really, really interested in them, because you can get closer to them that way. That he was interested in this young lady or any other young lady has no bearing on this case. Now, we already know he bought a motorcycle, and I suppose if she thinks he -- if she saw him with his

651

motorcycle after Patricia died, she can say that. But I don't think that her testimony along the lines Mr. Panosh said has any relevance at all. Particularly in light of the fact that, as I say once again, this is a trial of Ronnie Kimble, and such blandishments offered to attractive young women simply has nothing to do with any alleged conspiracy.

MR. LLOYD: Judge, if I could just say one thing. My problem is, if you buy Mr. Panosh's theory, then it's almost as if Ted Kimble planned to kill his wife before he ever married her, because that's the time frame we're talking about here. This was before the marriage ever took place. And I -- so what we have here, Your Honor, is that Ted Kimble was a two-timer, that he was a lady's man, but what does that have to do with Ronnie Kimble? And I think we've just got to ask some --

THE COURT: Well, it's got --

MR. LLOYD: -- very basic questions.

THE COURT: -- that's got to be in some furtherance of the conspiracy --

MR. LLOYD: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: -- is the pattern of conduct or ability to carry out the conspiracy. That's the problem the Court's having.

Mr. Panosh, I don't -- are you going to have some witness that's going to say that the only reason that the

652

business was sold to him was because he was married?

MR. PANOSH: The witness will say that he would not have sold the business to Theodore Kimble unless he was married and stable.

MR. HATFIELD: That's not exactly right.

THE COURT: Well, I don't know what the witness is going to say. Is the sole purpose of this witness's testimony just to show that there was a relationship between the two of them during this period of time? Did he make any statements to her, or how does it fit in with his ability to carry out the conspiracy or pattern of conduct that may have led to the ability to carry it out?

MR. PANOSH: He did make certain statements to her, Your Honor. He demonstrated to her that particular weapon, State's Exhibit 84.

THE COURT: All right. That's relevant.

MR. PANOSH: And she testifies that he carried it all the time, with his -- during the period of time that she knew him.

THE COURT: That would be relevant. What else, sir?

MR. PANOSH: That would be the only things, other than what I've already gone into.

THE COURT: The Court's going to restrict it to those things the Court would consider to be relevant, and

653

that -- I've indicated those two parts would be relevant. And the probative value would outweigh any prejudicial aspects to it. I'll let you establish that there was -- that he was also seeing her during that period of time, to that extent. But any further than that, I'm not -- I'm inclined to sustain the objection.

MR. PANOSH: The marriage proposition would be inappropriate?

THE COURT: What time -- was this before he became engaged to Janet Blakley or after he was engaged to her or before he married Pat -- Patricia?

MR. PANOSH: It was before he married Patricia and shortly before Patricia and he became -- started dating and became engaged.

VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION by MR. PANOSH:

Q    Can you give us the date -- or the month, please, that he asked you to marry him.

A    We started -- we started dating the middle -- toward the end of February.

THE COURT: Through May of '93 is what she's testified to previously.

THE WITNESS: I testified, I believe, that we dated from the end of --

THE COURT: February.

THE WITNESS: -- February to --

654

THE COURT: May.

THE WITNESS: -- the beginning of May. He proposed to me at the end of the second week that we dated.

Q    So it would have been late February?

A    Early March, probably.

THE COURT: That's a --

Q    Of 1993?

THE COURT: -- year before he married her.

A    And this was the week after he bought me a gun.

MR. HATFIELD: I thought sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander. He's a bad guy if he has a gun. She's a good girl if she has a gun.

MR. PANOSH: Well, we didn't intend to bring in the gun.

THE WITNESS: I apologize.

MR. PANOSH: We intend to bring in the gun that hE possessed and that he showed her.

THE COURT: The Court will let you -- the Court would allow you to establish the relationship, find that to be relevant, for the purposes of, if the jury should find it's part of a conduct or motive or ability to carry out the conspiracy, that they may consider it. The Court will find that that would be relevant. You may proceed with that.

MR. PANOSH: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Other than that, I'm going to keep it

655

out.

MR. PANOSH: You're going to allow me to get into the gun?

THE COURT: Sir?

MR. PANOSH: You'll allow me to get into the gun?

THE COURT: Yes. The gun was involved in the –

MR. PANOSH: Yes.

THE COURT: -- murder, yes -- in the death.

MR. LLOYD: Your Honor, we respect the Court's ruling, but we would ask additionally that if the Court is inclined to do that, to give the instructions once again --

THE COURT: All right.

MR. LLOYD: -- in addition.

THE COURT: If you'll write out an instruction different from the one that I --

MR. LLOYD: Well, I don't have any objections with the instructions the Court's given. Those are fine. I'm just asking for them again.

THE COURT: I'll be glad to do that.

MR. HATFIELD: All right. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Any other matters before the recess?

MR. PANOSH: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: 2:00 o'clock, sheriff.

(The witness left the witness stand.)

(A recess was taken at 12:26 p.m.)

656

(Court reconvened at 2:03 p.m. The defendant was present. The jury was not present.)

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, checking the exhibits, I noticed that 52 has not been admitted. I've showed it to counsel.

Do you oppose it being introduced?

MR. LLOYD: No.

MR. PANOSH: It's a picture of the house, specifically the crawl space and vents.

THE COURT: All right, sir.

Any other matters before we bring the jury in? Ms. Murray, if you'd come back to the witness stand, please, ma'am. You're still under oath.

(The witness returned to the witness stand.)

(The jury entered the courtroom at 2:03 p.m.)

THE COURT: I'm pleased to have the panel back.- I hope you had a nice lunch and feeling okay. Anyone having any problems this afternoon that I should know about, if you'll raise your hand.

The State ready to proceed?

MR. PANOSH: Yes, sir.

CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION by MR. PANOSH:

Q    Ms. Murray, then drawing your attention to that period of time in 1993 when you were seeing Ted Kimble, I believe you said it was from February to May of 1993, did it come to

657

your attention that he possessed a handgun?

A    Yes.

Q    How did it come to your attention?

A    We were sitting in his little gray car, and he pulled it out of the driver's side pocket.

Q    And thereafter, did you see that gun on other occasions?

A    Yes.

Q    Would you explain that.

A    Yes. He took me out to Calipers or Calibers, whatever it is, out there at the airport, and we were target practicing.

Q    And during the period of time that you and he were at Calipers (sic), did you use that particular weapon?

A    Yes.

Q    Could you describe that weapon?

A    It was a rather large gun, what I would consider a large gun, handgun, and yet it was lightweight. It was -­it had a magazine that would -- you'd push the magazine up through the bottom of the gun. And it had a laser sight or some -- whatever you call it, that little red light that shines on your target. He had told me that a lot of it was plastic, and that's what made it so light, only a portion of it was metal.

MR. PANOSH: May I approach the witness?

658

THE COURT: You may.

Q    Showing you now State's Exhibit 84, do you recognize -­84-A. Do you recognize this weapon?

A    It looks like the gun that I probably shot there.

Q    So you can't say for certain it's the same one, but it appears the same?

A    Yes. Is this a Glock? He called it a Glock. Is this what you call a Glock? I don't know. Anyway, I know he said it was a Glock gun, whatever that is.

Q    Would you pick it up and examine it.

(The witness complied.)

Q    Does it -- You said you shot it. Does it feel the same as it --

A    Yeah. It's -- I mean, it looks like it would weigh a lot more, but it's very light. And it -- I remember him showing me how to use the sight up here, but then it had red light, too, that he turned on somehow. (Indicated.) But the magazine would go up in the bottom like this. (Indicated.)

Q    Now, based upon your acquaintanceship with Theodore Kimble and the time that you spent with him, how often did he carry that gun with him?

A    Constantly. He -- the day that he showed it to me in the car, in fact, he commented that he always carried it, and he always kept it loaded with a certain kind of bullet,

659

hollow point, I think, hollow-point bullets.

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION by MR. LLOYD:

Q    Your relationship with Ted Kimble lasted a little over two months; is that correct?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    You indicated that you started dating him at the end of February, and you had broken up with him by early May; is that right?

A    Yes, sir. By the early May to the middle of May.

Q    All right. And Ms. Murray, you didn't date -- you didn't go out on dates with Ted Kimble every night, did you?

A    No, sir.

Q    Okay. Was this relationship mainly where you dated on the weekends?

A    We saw each other usually through the week. Your question, I believe, was, did we go out --

Q    Uh-huh.

A    -- every night. No, we did not go out every night, but we saw each other pretty much every night.

Q    For that period of time when you were dating; is that right?

A    More so probably toward the end of March and April and the beginning of May.

Q    So that's when you saw the most of each other?

660

A    Yes. The relationship matured to a point where we wanted to see each other more often.

Q    So at first you didn't see each other as often as you did at that period of time?

A    Right.

Q    And you say that you went out to a shooting gallery at some point with Ted; is that right?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Had you expressed an interest in learning how to shoot or shooting?

A    No, sir.

Q    All right. But you nevertheless went with Ted?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    All right. And it wasn't something where you said, "Well, I'm -- gee, I'm afraid of guns, and I don't want to go shooting"?

A    No, I did not say that.

Q    All right.

MR. LLOYD: That's all I have, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Come down.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION by MR. PANOSH:

Q    Could you explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury why you went with him on that occasion?

A    I'm sorry. Could you --

Q    Could you explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the

661

jury why you went with him on that occasion when you used the weapon?

A    The first week that we dated, Ted bought me a handgun. And I had never owned a handgun and didn't know what to do with it, how to use it. His comment to me was, "You're single. You're living alone. You need a weapon to protect yourself." And I said, "Well, I don't even know how to shoot it." So he told me that he wanted to take me out to Calipers or Calibers. Which is it, so I'll know, Calibers or Calipers?

Q    The shooting range.

A    The shooting range. He took me out there, to show me how to shoot the gun. And he bought me a little box of hollow-point bullets. And he basically took me out there to show me how to shoot the gun and what it would feel like to shoot it. And I didn't do so well with my gun, because it was pretty heavy. But I shot his gun, and everything was -­I did real well with shooting his gun.

MR. PANOSH: Thank you.

THE COURT: Additional questions, Mr. Lloyd?

MR. LLOYD: Just a few questions.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION by MR. LLOYD:

Q    Ms. Murray, did you go out there again to shoot?

A    No, sir. I went that one time.

Q    But the gun was purchased for your safety; is that

662

correct?

A    Ted purchased me the gun, and that's what he -- that's the excuse he gave me.

Q    Well, you kept the gun, didn't you?

A    Yes.

Q    All right. Did you use it for your own safety?

A    I left it in the box, put away. Really, if someone were to come in, I could not have probably gotten to it, to protect myself.

Q    But Ted didn't take the gun back from you, did he?

A    No.

Q    All right.

MR. LLOYD: That's all I have, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Step down, ma'am.

(The witness left the witness stand.)