An Act Of Murder (20 page)

“When I picked her up at the curb, she appeared to be restless. She was walking up and down, pacing, and in an anxious manner,” Jennifer told the jury. “She got in the car. She affirmed that she felt too anxious and shaky to drive herself and that is why she wanted someone to drive her to the funeral home.”

Kim explained to Jennifer she had to go to the funeral home to sign some papers that she then had to fax to the medical examiner so he could release Steve's body.

“She was concerned,” Jennifer testified. “She didn't quite understand why. She felt she had taken care of all those arrangements prior to coming to Pennsylvania.”

Dean also asked Jennifer if she ever talked to Kim about whether she and Steve used the woodstove in their room at Harbourtowne. Jennifer said ever since Steve died, she kept trying to figure out how it happened. She said during the week leading up to Steve's funeral, she kept asking various people questions about what had occurred at Harbourtowne. One of the things she learned was that there was some kind of wood-burning stove in the room and that the hotel supplied a fire log, for each of the guests. So Jenny asked Kim if she and Steve had burned the log, and if so, did they burn it before or after they went to dinner and the show. Kim hesitated for a few seconds and then said it was before they went to the murder-mystery dinner show.

“Now at any time during that week, the week following the death of your brother, did Kim tell you that she was going to go back down to Maryland for a day or so?” Dean asked.

Jennifer testified that Kim pulled her aside on Wednesday to tell her that her friend Rachelle St. Phard, who had driven to Pennsylvania from her home in New Jersey to be with Kim, was driving her back to St. Michaels. Kim was very vague about why she wanted to go back to the place where Steve died. Jennifer was surprised Kim would leave Pennsylvania, because Steve's viewing was the next day. Jennifer said Kim asked her not to tell any of the Hrickos that she and Rachelle were going back to Maryland.

“She goes, ‘I really don't want any questions or hassles. I just want to go,'” Jennifer told the jury. “So after they left, I did wait till she left and then I told my family she left.”

Astors Liquor clerk Doris Grave Coles told the jury that Kim bought a package of Backwood cigars, the same brand that was found in the Hrickos' room at Harbourtowne, sometime between January and February 1998. And David Sexton, a Maryland State Police forensic document examiner, said the machine that was used to make the price tag that was on the cigars in the Hrickos' room came from Astors Liquor.

Joe Gamble, who had been promoted to sergeant before the trial, testified about his attempts to determine where the cigars found in room 506 were purchased. He explained that he decided to focus his investigation in the area near the Hrickos' home in Laurel. He told the jury he went to approximately twenty-five stores on March 19 and 20, 1998, before going to Astors Liquor and finding a price tag on a package of Backwoods cigars that was identical to the price tag on the pack of cigars found at the fire scene.

The last witness of the day, as well as the prosecution's last witness, was Rachel McCoy, Kim's former best friend. Rachel told the jury that she met Kim in 1986 at the Pennsylvania restaurant where they both worked. She said they quickly became best friends and were even roommates for a time. Rachel told the jury that in the fall of 1997 Kim told her she wasn't happy in her marriage and was looking into getting a divorce. Then in January 1998 Kim told Rachel she was seeing a younger man, insisting, however, that their relationship was just about sex.

“She told me Jenny and Teri were not being very supportive of her in pursuing that relationship and they wanted her more to try to work it out with Steve and concentrate on that, and she didn't appreciate that they didn't support her,” Rachel said.

Rachel also told the jury about the night at Kim's house when she talked to Rachel in detail about her plan to kill Steve.

“She was talking about how it would be easier if Steve were dead and she told me she had a plan on how to do it, where she wouldn't get caught,” Rachel testified. “She told me that she could get a drug that would paralyze Steve, that would stop his breathing, and then she would set the curtains on fire with a candle or a cigar and that he would die of smoke inhalation in a fire and nobody would know.”

Rachel said she tried to poke holes in Kim's plan, but Kim had answers for everything.

“I [asked her] where she was going to get this drug,” Rachel said. “She told me that she could get the drug at work very easily—that it was in every hallway or every [operating room]. That they used it for trauma victims to stop their breathing so they could put a tube in their throat to put them on oxygen, so it was right there. She told me the drug wasn't traceable in the blood.”

“Did she mention at all how she would give it to him?” Dean asked.

“She would inject it in a muscle.”

“Did you try to tell her about the option of divorce?”

“Yup, I said that to her a number of times. ‘Why don't you just get a divorce?'” Rachel told the jury. “And she seemed to think that this would be easier.”

“Were you close to Kim at this time?” Dean asked.

“I was very close to Kim.”

“Did you love her?”

“Yeah.”

Several people who were at Kim's trial, including assistant state's attorney Henry Dove, said at one point during Rachel's testimony Kim gave her the finger.

Rachel told the jury that after Kim recounted her horrific plan, she went upstairs. Rachel thought she was going to use the bathroom, but when she didn't come back right away, Rachel went up after her and found her standing in the bedroom staring at her sleeping husband. She then coaxed Kim back downstairs.

“I just tried to calm her down and get her to stop crying and I was telling her that she needed to go to bed and go to sleep,” Rachel said. “And just really a few minutes later, she did go upstairs and go to sleep and I waited about twenty more minutes.”

However, before Kim went upstairs, Rachel called her neighbors in Baltimore to tell them what Kim was saying about killing Steve.

“I told them what Kim said, and Kim was yelling in the background, ‘What, are you going to tell everybody?'” Rachel said. “And I didn't talk to them very long, but I did tell them that—because she was making me nervous with her behavior—if I called them again and hung up the phone, because they have caller ID, I said, ‘If I call you again and hang up, I want you to call the police and tell them to come here.'”

But soon after Kim went upstairs, Rachel went home and never had to put her plan into action.

Rachel said she called Kim twice the next day to make sure everyone at the Hrickos' house was okay. Both times Kim told her everything was fine. That was the last time Rachel spoke with Kim until after Steve's, death. Rachel said after she learned the circumstances surrounding Steve's death, she called police to tell them what she knew.

Dean rested his case after Rachel finished testifying. At some point during the day Judge Horne dismissed two jurors, who appeared to be sleeping during testimony, and replaced them with two alternates. That left twelve jurors and two alternates hearing the case.

After the jurors were dismissed and before court adjourned for the day, Bill Brennan moved for a judgment of acquittal of the charges against Kimberly. Brennan argued that premeditated murder required three elements: the killing had to be willful, was a result of deliberation, and was premeditated.

“We feel that the state has failed in its proof to prove that . . . Mrs. Hricko was the one who actually did the killing and . . . they have also failed in its proof on the issue of premeditation,” Brennan argued.

Brennan told the judge that from a scientific point of view, the state didn't prove that Steve was murdered. In addition, there was no proof that Kimberly was the person who actually set the fire at Harbourtowne.

“There was no opinion, evidence in this record, Your Honor, to indicate that the fire was incendiary in nature or that it was deliberately set,” Brennan said. “The state has not met its burden, Your Honor, that this was not an accidental fire and/or that my client was the one that set it.”

In addition, Brennan said that first-degree arson required that the perpetrator intended to burn down a dwelling, not burn up a body to cover up a crime. And, he said, there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find that she willfully and maliciously intended to burn down the cottage that housed room 506.

Bob Dean said at that stage of the proceedings, the question was whether or not the state had presented evidence that was legally sufficient to allow the jury to make a decision on the charges. Dean said the state had met its burden of proof.

Judge Horne agreed with the prosecutor and denied the defense's motion for acquittal.

On Friday, the last day of Kim's trial, the first witness called by the defense was Officer First Class Stephen Craig, of the St. Michaels Police Department. Craig said he and two other St. Michaels officers were the first to arrive at Harbourtowne in the early-morning hours of February 15, 1998.

Craig said when they first arrived, they were directed to the back of the building that housed room 506 and told there was a fire in the room. He said he first met Kim as she was walking toward the cottage.

“Was she running toward you?” Harry Trainor asked.

“A speeded walk, yes.”

He said he put out his arm to stop her from moving forward and she “sort of” collapsed in his arms. Craig told the jury Kim was “upset.” When Trainor pressed him on the issue, he admitted that previously he had said she was “hysterical” and later appeared “despondent.”

Next the defense called forensic pathologist Dr. John Adams to the stand to try and refute testimony given by the medical examiner. Adams, who had worked as an assistant state medical examiner in Maryland from 1962 to 1965, spent twenty-five years as a general pathologist in a Baltimore hospital before starting a private consulting business in 1990.

Adams said after reviewing Stephen Hricko's autopsy records, his opinion was that Steve's cause of death was unknown and the manner of death was undetermined. He said he reached those conclusions because the autopsy and toxicology studies of Steve's body did not establish an exact cause of Steve's death.

“Doctor, now can you give us, sir, the basis for your opinion as to the cause of death and the manner of death, relying on the science and the medicine that you have reviewed in this case?” Trainor asked Adams.

“Sure, the basis for my opinion is this: that a complete autopsy was done, including microscopic study, and no cause of death was found,” Adams responded. “A fairly complete toxicology study on various tissues and organs and fluids of the body was done and no cause of death was found as a result of that study as well. So that based upon the science and leaving the circumstances out, it's my opinion that the cause of death was not determined by autopsy and not having the cause of death, it's impossible in this case to know what the manner of death is, i.e., whether it's natural, homicide, suicide, accident, or whatever.”

Trainor then asked Adams about deaths due to smoke inhalation.

“In many, if not most, cases of fire deaths, death is caused by inhalation of smoke, which produces a couple of important things,” Adams told the jury. “The carbon monoxide in the smoke is absorbed into the blood and that gets attached to the oxygen-carrying molecules in the blood and competes for oxygen, so that you basically wind up with no oxygen in your bloodstream and that's lethal. A second effect in fire deaths, of smoke inhalation is irritation and damage to the airway. Those are the main features in fire deaths where the cause of death is a result of smoke inhalation. Another important factor in many fire deaths is the fact that when you burn plastics, these artificial materials, you commonly get cyanide from it. And, of course, we all know that cyanide is very extremely lethal and so it's common to find lethal levels of cyanide in the blood of people who have died in fires.”

Adams said that while the presence of an abnormal level of carbon monoxide or cyanide in the bloodstream and the presence of soot in the airway, in the lungs, or in the upper airway, confirms that the person was alive when the fire was started, the absence of carbon monoxide and the absence of smoke damage or soot in the airway doesn't necessarily prove a person was dead when the fire started.

“There are many recorded examples of both fast fires and some slow fires where neither smoke inhalation with soot nor carbon monoxide or cyanide were found and yet it's known that the person was alive at the time of the fire,” Adams testified.

So as far as Adams was concerned, Steve still could have been alive when the fire started.

Adams said it was unlikely that a paralyzing dose of succinylcholine could be given to a physically fit 245-pound man without his cooperation. He also said succinylcholine could be detected in a person's urine after death.

The defense recalled Bonnie Parker to ask her about statements Mike Miller made to her the morning Steve died. Trainor asked Parker if Miller expressed his concerns about the possibility that Steve committed suicide. During his testimony Mike denied saying anything about Steve killing himself.

“What he said was that he could believe that Steve was capable of committing suicide, but that he would never, ever, do it by way of fire because he didn't smoke,” Parker told the jury. “And he just had a lot of questions about the manner of Stephen's death by fire.”

“But he told you that he could honestly picture him committing suicide?”

“He said something like if he thought that he was going to lose his wife and his daughter, he could get into a depression,” Parker said.

“And he specifically mentioned suicide?” Trainor asked.

“That he could see it,” she responded.

Under cross-examination Parker said Miller made those statements as he was trying to determine how Steve died.

Before the defense rested its case, the jury also heard from Kim's uncle David Woleslagle and her mother, Lois Wolf.

Woleslagle, an equipment operator for the state of Pennsylvania, testified that he had seen Steve smoke a cigar at a couple of family gatherings. Woleslagle's testimony was in direct contradiction to the testimony of Steve's friends and coworkers, who said they had never seen him smoke cigars or cigarettes.

“During the time that Kim and Stephen Hricko were married and after their daughter, Sarah, was born, did you have occasions to see them during family gatherings?” Trainor asked Woleslagle.

“Yes.”

“During any of those gatherings, did you interact or communicate with Stephen Hricko?”

“Yes, I did.”

“Were you able to make any observations about any tobacco usage Mr. Hricko did?”

“Yes, I can tell you whenever we had a discussion on an occasion—you can't smoke in my sister's house, so we went outside and he smoked a cigar while we were outside on the side porch of her home discussing various things, sports, golf. We were discussing just all kinds of odds and ends,” Woleslagle said.

“On how many occasions did you observe him smoking a cigar?” Trainor asked.

“Twice.”

Kim's mother told the jury about Kim's behavior and emotional state in the days after Steve's death.

“She was very, very upset. She was just desolate,” Wolf said. “She cried a lot. She was a basket case, she really was. In fact, she was so bad that when we took her back up to the Hrickos,' I had to drive her car. She was in the back comforting Sarah. She couldn't even drive.”

After conferring with her attorneys, Kimberly decided not to testify, as was her right. Before resting its case, the defense asked the judge to enter a Judgment of Acquittal, which was denied. Judge Horne then gave jurors the instructions they were to follow during their deliberation before the attorneys gave their closing arguments.

First he reminded the jurors that they had to completely disregard any newspaper, television, or radio reports they might have read, seen, or heard concerning Kim's case. Then he said Kim was innocent of all charges unless they were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty.

“Proof beyond a reasonable doubt requires such proof as would convince you of the truth of a fact to the extent that you would be willing to act upon such belief without reservation in an important matter in your own business or personal affairs,” Horne said. “However, if you are not satisfied of the defendant's guilt to that extent, then reasonable doubt exists and the defendant must be found not guilty.”

He told them in making their decision they should consider the evidence, which was the testimony from the witness stand, the physical evidence or exhibits that had been admitted into evidence, and stipulations of the attorneys.

“In evaluating the evidence you should consider it in light of your own experiences,” he said.

The jurors were told they could not consider the charging document, inadmissible or stricken evidence, and questions or objections of counsel, because they were not evidence. Horne also said the jurors could not draw any conclusions or inferences from his comments or questions as to the merits of the case or his questions of the witnesses. He reminded them that opening and closing statements were not evidence, but only could help them understand the evidence.

“There are two types of evidence, direct and circumstantial,” he said. “The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. No greater degree of certainty is required of circumstantial evidence than of direct evidence in reaching a decision. You should weigh all evidence, whether direct or circumstantial.”

Horne said the jurors couldn't convict Kimberly unless they determined that the evidence, when considered as a whole, established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He explained that they should take into account all of the testimony and evidence, as well as the circumstances under which each witness testified. The judge told them to consider a witness's behavior on the stand and the manner in which he or she testified.

He said the jurors should try to determine if the witness was telling the truth, if the witness had the opportunity to see or hear the things he or she testified about, if the witness accurately remembered the events in question, if the witness had an interest in the outcome of the case, if the witness's testimony was consistent, if the witness's testimony was supported or contradicted by other testimony, and if the witness's testimony in court differed from his or her previous statements.

Horne told the jurors they didn't have to believe a witness's testimony—even if that testimony wasn't contradicted.

“You may believe all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness,” Horne explained.

The judge also said the jurors didn't have to accept anything an expert witness said on the stand. He said they should consider an expert's opinion in conjunction with all the other evidence that was presented.

“In weighing the opinion of an expert, you should consider the expert's experience, training, and skills, as well as the expert's knowledge of the subject matter about which the expert is expressing an opinion,” the judge said.

Horne then reminded the jurors that Kimberly had an absolute, constitutional right not to testify and the fact that she chose not to testify should not be held against her.

In this case the state introduced evidence that Kim made a certain statement to police about the crimes she had been charged with and it was up to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she made that statement freely and voluntarily, Horne said.

“If you don't find beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary, you must disregard it,” he said. “The burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense was committed and that the defendant is the person who committed it.”

Although the state wasn't required to prove motive, he said the jurors could consider motive or lack of motive as a circumstance in the case.

“Presence of motive may be evidence of guilt,” he said. “Absence of motive may suggest innocence.”

Next, Horne explained to the jurors that Kim had been charged with first-degree, as well as second-degree, murder.

First-degree murder was the intentional killing of another person with willfulness, deliberation, and premeditation, he said. In order to convict Kimberly of this crime, the jury had to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Kim caused Steve's death and that the killing was willful, deliberate, and premeditated.

Second-degree murder, he said, was the killing of another person with either the intent to kill or the intent to inflict such bodily harm that death would likely result. In order to convict Kim of second-degree murder, the jury had to decide beyond a reasonable doubt that she caused Steve's death and that she engaged in the deadly conduct with the intent to inflict such serious bodily harm that death would likely result.

To convict Kimberly of arson the jury had to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that she set fire to room 506 and that she did so willfully and maliciously.

With that, Judge Horne finished his instructions to the jury, and closing arguments began.