Law&Crime Sidebar - Former Ballerina Accused of Murdering Her Husband — The Story So Far

Episode Date: July 6, 2023

A former ballerina and model stands accused of murdering her husband in her Florida home in September 2020. Ashley Benefield claims she shot her husband, Doug Benefield, in self-defense after he attacked her. Leading up to Doug’s death, the marriage was filled with disorder as Ashley claimed her husband was abusive and tried to poison her. The former dancer faces a second-degree murder chase in Doug’s death as she pushes the stand-your-ground narrative. The Law&Crime Network’s Jesse Weber breaks down the story so far with Jules Epstein, a criminal law and evidence professor at Temple University Beasley School of Law.LAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergWriting & Video Editing - Michael DeiningerGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa Bein & Kiera BronsonSUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieObjectionsThey Walk Among AmericaDevil In The DormThe Disturbing TruthSpeaking FreelyLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. views shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller

that will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. She alleged and we had the obligation to establish that there was an objectively reasonable expectation that she would suffer great bodily injury or death and that knowing what she knew about Douglas Benefield, the force used, was reasonable. The strange case of a former ballerina who allegedly shot and killed her husband is taking a step closer to trial. Professor of Law, Jules Epstein, sits down with me to discuss this roller coaster of a case. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber.

Well, a Florida murder case has taken center stage, and it is that of former model and ballerina Ashley Benefield. Now, Ashley is accused of shooting and killing her husband, Doug Benefield, inside of their Lakewood Ranch house in Florida back in September of 2020. Now, Ashley's defense team filed a motion for dismissal as she claims that Doug was an abusive husband, and she shot and killed him in self-defense. Now, that motion was denied, and Ashley Benefield has entered a not guilty plea, and I should tell you that at the time of this recording, her stand-your-ground hearing in front of a judge is currently going on, and we're going to explain what that hearing means in a minute. But first, let's get into some background of the case. So, let's rewind to 2016. Ashley was at a Republican fundraiser in Palm Beach, Florida. Now, she was only 24 years old at the time.

She actually worked as Donald Trump's campaign office in his campaign office in Sarasota, Florida. At this fundraiser is where she meets recently widowed 54-year-old Navy veteran Doug Benefield. You notice how I said recently? So before Ashley, Doug's first wife, Renee Benefield, died just nine months prior from an undiagnosed heart condition. Now, I want to be very clear because I don't know if a lot of you thought this or speculating. Doug has never been charged in connection with his wife's death. there is no evidence whatsoever that he was involved in his wife's death. I want to make that very, very clear. Well, apparently, Doug and Ashley are smitten when they meet, despite their

30-year age difference, and just two weeks after meeting, they marry. Now, one note about their wedding is that no one was invited, not even Doug's 15-year-old daughter, Eva. According to Doug's cousin, Doug didn't even tell Eva that he was getting married. So Doug, I should tell you also, was a technology consultant and he had started several businesses and it just so happens that his new wife wanted to start her own ballet company. So with the help of Doug, Ashley launched the American National Ballet in Charleston, South Carolina, but this company failed. This business failed and it failed pretty quickly. And the relationship between the two soured with Ashley ending up living with her mother while she was pregnant with Doug's baby and what Ashley accused Doug of, we'll get into more of that

in a minute. But Ashley did eventually give birth in March of 2018, and it was so bad between her and Doug, she not only didn't put his name down on the birth certificate, she didn't tell him that she gave birth. It would be months before he even saw his daughter with the help of a court. So they wound up actually getting back together. They worked on their differences. But then on September 27th, 2020, that is when everything changes. Ashley Benefield shot and killed Doug Benefield. And this happened while Doug and Ashley were alone in her home after they were preparing to move to Maryland. He was going to move to Maryland but lived separately from them. They were trying to work it out. Now, their daughter was out with Ashley's mother at the time of the shooting.

The police dispatchers received a 911 phone call from a man who said his neighbor had just run over to his home, yelling for help, that she had just shot her husband because he attacked her. That neighbor was identified as Ashley Benefield. So Ashley wasn't arrested until November 5th, 2020, a little over a month after Doug's death, and she's charged with second-degree murder with a firearm and faces a minimum sentence of 25 years to life in prison. Now, you have to hear this. After being charged with the crime, the judge set a bond of $100,000, and Ashley was able to pay it. So now, she has a court-issued curfew. She's required to wear an ankle monitor. She lives with her mother and her now five-year-old daughter. Court documents show that she's

been able to adjust her curfew at times when needed. She's been able to travel to a wedding and Maryland at one point. There's a lot to get into here. And before I get into any of the details regarding the investigation and the evidence of the case, I want to bring on a very special guest fan favorite from us here at the show and also from our viewers and listeners. I'm joined right now by Professor Jules Epstein. Professor Epstein is the Edward D. Allbound Professor of Law and Director of Advocacy Programs at Temple University Beasley School of Law. And he joins us now. Professor, so good to see you. Thanks for taking the time. Thank you for having me. Let's get into the law. Let's start

there. So Ashley Benefield was in court for a pretrial hearing, and it is centered upon the stand your ground defense in Florida. Let's start there. What is a stand your ground hearing? What is stand your ground law mean? So stand your ground is a form of self-defense. In many states, there's what's called a duty to retreat. Even if I am in fear of you, let's say you have a knife, If I can back away safely, I have to do that. I can't stand my ground and then use deadly force. Florida and other states have a stand your ground law, which is, even if I could avoid the problem completely, if I am legally where I am, I went to the corner to buy a newspaper. and you're coming at me and I could turn around, I can stand my ground, and then, and the

terms are if I am in fear of imminent death or imminent great bodily harm, I may use deadly force. If she can convince a judge that this was stand your ground and it applies, what does that mean the case is over? Florida has what's called an immunity provision. You are immune protected from prosecution. It's going to be a little weird with can she convince the judge because the law is actually so protective of the person who claims self-defense that if she raises what's called a prima facie case and on the surface of it claim this was self-defense, the government has to prove that it was in self-defense, not beyond a reasonable doubt, but by the very high level of what's called clear and convincing evidence. So she doesn't have to prove

much. She has to make what I'd call, and forgive me if this is legal jargon a little, a colorable, a facially plausible claim. I was in fear, and I'm going again, of imminent, meaning in that moment, death or imminent great bodily harm. Now, let's be clear, even if she's to lose this hearing. And by that, I mean, this trial, this case progresses to a trial, she can still assert a self-defense argument in front of a jury. How is that going to look different than arguing stand your ground? I think part of it is still arguing stand your ground, but she'll be arguing it to a jury,

not to the judge here. It's almost a two bites at the Apple approach. I think the idea here is that Florida says, we're so protective of people's right to self-defense. We don't want the expense of a trial. We don't want the months and months of agony of waiting for a trial. We're going to let a judge do an early review. That's my lay explanation of what an immunity hearing is let's get rid of the case if she is really immune, but she always has the right to ask a jury, even if the judge says, I don't buy it. Well, now let's get into some of the details that might help or not help a self-defense or stand your ground claim. So according to court documents, Ashley apparently tried to do everything she could to keep Doug away from their

baby. She even filed domestic violence claims in court. Supposedly, Doug had once fired gun into the ceiling during an argument with Ashley, I believe it was like right before their wedding. She claims that Doug tried to poison her at one point. So if these domestic claims are true, if Doug was in fact abusive to Ashley, how does that factor into the case and maybe ultimately the judge or the jury's decision? When we are deciding if a person acted in self-defense, part of it is objective look at the facts neutrally part of it is subjective what's reasonably in her mind well if my spouse and i'm not saying he did this but if my spouse had shot a gun in front of me i think another one was like punched the dog in the face we'll put aside the poison thing that says

that explains why I could be fearful of him so that on that night, in that house, when he came at me and pushed me and smacked me with a box and took his fist like that towards my head, it wasn't those acts in isolation, but in a context of a history. So that's so important. You have to understand what the backstory was. So even if you were just to look at whatever the actions were on the night in question. We'll get to it a second. You can't look at an isolation because it might look relatively benign to somebody, but looking at it in the context of the full history,

that's something the jury could consider. Absolutely. Now, let's talk about this. We don't know if it's true. The ceiling story may be true, according to Doug's family attorney. She said that Doug once did discharge the gun into the ceiling of the house. Doug admitted that in a deposition based on what I'm. I've read, his spin is different.

It's, okay, I lost my call. I shot into the air, but that's it. Right. But, his friend, his friend, though, Tripp Kormone, if I'm saying his name, right, said that Doug was filled with regret over what happened. So apparently it did happen, but maybe the reasoning behind it or what prompted is there's a difference there. Now, I do want your opinion on this.

At this injunction hearing, the judge went on the record and said that this poisoning story did not possess a scintilla of truth as laid out by Ashley. What do you think about that? Okay. I think about it as a human, as a citizen and as a law professor, as a human, I'm saying, okay, something smelled really bad to this judge. And sadly, because I want to be clear, I think most of the time when people go to court seeking an injunction or what in some states we call a protection order. They don't do it out

of spite. They go because there's fear. If a judge who's appropriately sensitive says, I'm sorry, this is so unbelievable, I can't stand it, you would have to say there's a question mark here. As a lawyer, it becomes really interesting because under the rules of evidence, I'm not sure that that judge's opinion, hey, I don't believe you, belongs in a trial in another case. And then we're in this weird world. If it's not exactly a trial, it's an immunity hearing. But the tiny bit of it that I watched on Law and Crime this morning seemed to see all this stuff was coming in. So it may also be that you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

what do I mean that Ashley's defense team is making all these claims that may make fair response for the prosecutor and say, sure, but when you took it to a judge, they went like this. They said it's right. So this is laying it all out. Okay. Well, I'm glad you mentioned that because this is the defense's theory of what happened that night, which is what I imagine they're going to argue with this. We saw this from their motion to dismiss.

Here's what they say happen. I'm just going to lay it out, and then I want what you think about this, if this will rise to the level of a self-defense claim. So they say, Doug allegedly became angry, screaming, we are moving together as a family, making a fresh start, but you're dividing us, and it's time you start acting like a wife. Remember, they were going to be moving together to Maryland. Later, Doug allegedly drove a moving box directly into Ashley in an upward motion, resulting in considerable pain and scratches to her right side. Ashley tried to, now there is a debate about whether she actually had injuries or not. Police say they couldn't find anything. Her attorneys apparently showed evidence that she did have bruises.

And then Ashley tries to leave the home, but Doug allegedly grabs her by the left hand, yanked her backward, and asked her where she was going. He's accused of wagging his finger in her face stating, you can't leave me. Ashley snapped, yelled at him to leave, raising his right hand with a closed fist. He drove his knuckles at the second joint into the left side of her head. Her worst fears realized she now Ashley believed her life was in danger and she opened fire. What do you think about that if those are the faxes laid out by the defense? So my first question is how they're going to prove that.

And so let me back up slightly because she has the right to remain silent at this hearing. On the other hand, anything that's the old, anything you say can and will be used against you, if she testifies at the immunity hearing, her words can then be admitted against her at trial if the judge doesn't throw it out. So what decision she will make? I don't know. So I'm still scratching my head. This is her story. She's the only person in the house who's going to tell it. But assuming it can be told, it comes down to a decision of the following. talked before about context okay if you're over at my house and I grab you saying you can't leave and I hate you once upside the head okay is that enough to make you fear death is that enough to make you fear I'm going back to the statute

great bodily harm maybe the second especially if there is indeed this context that you and I don't have in our friendship, right? I haven't shot a gun in front of you into the ceiling. And I will say, because I've worked over the years on cases with battered person's defense, as you put it, what might seem fairly minor to you or to me can be the beginning, the signal of the volcano is about to erupt in a battering relationship. relationship. But that's if that's what was going on here. I think some of the problems that her case faces are number one. This whole dispute, I have a box banged into my side. Well, the police

photo shows a day or two old scratch on her. And there's somebody said, oh, she got that a day or two earlier. There's a picture of a black eye, but I can't tell when it's from. So I don't know what that means. I found it interesting. I'm not sure this is admissible that by the time the police got there that night, her lawyer was on the scene. And of course, she's not talking to anybody who called the lawyer, how quickly, what was going on there. I'm not sure what inference, good, bad, or neutral should be drawn from that. And then if she doesn't have bruises corroborating this um then the question is does that story ring true if it does i think a judge could give her the benefit of fear of great bodily harm i'm not sure they have to and the government's job here

is going to say wait a minute take a look where the guy is shot and please help me out here But my memory from reading all the news reports is he shot leg and sort of in the side as if turning away from her. That's my next point. So first, you make a great point that either a judge or a jury is going to have to accept the facts laid out by the defense and then if they accept those facts to determine whether or not it amounts to a self-defense claim. But you mentioned where he was shot and how many times he was shot.

This I find to be the central question. She fired four shots. Two of them hit him. when one went through his right leg from the side and the other through the side of his ribs, the prosecution is claiming that he wasn't facing Ashley when she shot him. So that's a really important point that if she shot him in the back or while he was turned away, how on earth can you claim self-defense unless, of course, he was turning to grab something or he was turning to roundhouse and puncher?

That's the only thing that makes sense to me, Professor. So that's the whole issue. You're exactly right. If we only took where the bullet entered in isolation, that raises a great concern. It's not, I am shooting as they're coming right at me, right? Dead on in the chest. Okay. There's some turning. I would be very curious to have an independent forensic expert or a forensic pathologist. say what are the different positions a body could be in. Number two, I can be swinging at you and turn sideways slightly, right, before I'm going to swing again. So I'm not sure how much you can read into that, although it certainly isn't the most helpful fact for her. We're in this closed house, right, close quarters, but she sure cannot say he was coming at me with the sledgehammer over. for his head. She said he postured like a mixed martial artist, basically claiming that was why he was shot on the side of the body. And then there was something I read in one of the reports

where the government is claiming that the position is inconsistent with some sort of aggressive or menacing attitude again. When I read things like that, my general reaction is wait a minute there are too many ways a body can move and i would like to see some martial artist move in 20 positions and we keep shooting them with a paint gun right something to i'm not convinced of that unless i really learn the credentials of the person who's saying that and whether they actually tested it it's easy for me to say oh that's inconsistent but have you tried to you tried standing that way? Have you tried standing that way and measured? So, Professor, before we let you go, I want to ask you real quick, we have about a minute

left. She's charged with second-degree murder, not first-degree murder. I mean, I don't think this is their arguing. It was premeditated or deliberated upon or planned. But could one of her best strategies be if she can't get this a not-guilty verdict, if this goes to a trial, to maybe get it reduced to manslaughter? Is that a possibility? So forgive me, I didn't research Florida law on that, but in many states, there's something we called imperfect self-defense, and that often reduces murder to manslaughter, where we're saying you didn't go in with a cruelness and evil disposition, but you misassessed the circumstances, you over-responded, but you're not malicious. And so here's what would happen real quick. Her lawyers, assuming this went to trial, would have to make a decision or two. One is do they ask the judge when you charge the jury, do you make sure to include that lesser charge?

Some lawyers say no. I want an all or nothing because I'm bold and I don't think any juror is going to give her the all. So I want the not guilty. Some are more conservative saying, I want that, I want that, you know, safety valve, that protection. And that's what we'll have to wait and see how they play it. Professor Jules Epstein, I love to have you back on as this case progresses. And we see whether or not she will be able to survive the standard ground hearing and what transpires from that. But if this case ultimately does progress, would love to have you on.

Thank you so much for your insight. I know I appreciated it. And I'm sure our viewers and listeners will, too. Well, thank you for allowing real discussion at a real deep level of what are some complicated and important legal issues. I agree, sir. Thank you again. All right, everybody. That is all we have for you right now here on Sidebar.

Thank you so much for joining us. Please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. You can binge all episodes of this long crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.