Kesler next argues that he is entitled to a new trial because his conviction was based on illegally obtained evidence. He argues that his arrest was based on information gained by the police from defendant Crumpler, who had told the police that he had not been involved in the murder and who was not an accomplice to the murder and was not a credible witness. Defendant Crumpler admitted at trial that he had lied to the police when he denied that he was involved in the murder.
Kesler first argues that the evidence is insufficient because there is no evidence of motive on his part. This argument is a non sequitur. The jury was authorized to find that defendant Crumpler had a motive for the murder and that he brought Faircloth to the scene and to Milan in defendant Kesler's car. Defendant Crumpler's motive to murder the victim was to eliminate a person who could identify him as the person who had raped and strangled the victim. Defendant Crumpler's motive to eliminate defendant Kesler was to protect himself from the possibility that defendant Crumpler would be convicted of the murder if he himself were convicted of kidnapping. The jury was authorized to find that defendant Crumpler killed the victim, not simply to have Faircloth do the killing. But defendant Crumpler was not the only possible killer. The evidence showed that defendant Crumpler could have left the scene of the murder alone or could have called defendant Kesler or defendant Kesler's wife to come out of hiding to assist him. The evidence showed that defendant Kesler could have killed the victim and disposed of the body in a manner similar to how he disposed of the body of the victim of the murder of William Taylor. The evidence showed that defendant Kesler had been in the company of both defendant Crumpler and Faircloth the morning of the murder. The evidence showed that defendant Kesler had motive to kill the victim. He had threatened to kill her if she did not repay a debt. He feared that she would inform police of the criminal actions of defendant Crumpler and Faircloth and of the criminal activities of defendant Kesler. The jury was authorized to find *466 that defendant Kesler killed the victim to protect himself by eliminating the only person who could identify him as the actual killer of the victim.
At trial, defendant Crumpler and defendant Kesler offered alternate explanations for the presence of Faircloth's bloody clothes in defendant Crumpler's car. Defendant Kesler testified that Faircloth had washed his clothes and used his laundry facilities. But defendant Crumpler testified that he had kept Faircloth's clothes in his car in case he was arrested for the murder and needed to use them as a basis for defense. He had dropped them off at Kesler's house before going to work on May 25. The jury was authorized to find that this was a false explanation. Defendant Crumpler's initial statement to the police was that Faircloth had washed his clothes and that he had brought them to his trailer, but he later changed his story and said he had dropped them off at defendant Kesler's house because it was closer. 827ec27edc