Evidence of Murder

by Samuel Roen

  Jim Larson, in his subdued manner, showed little reaction to the jury decision that he had hoped for. One of the men from the press approached Larson and asked for a comment. The widower studied him and then said, “I want him dead so he can’t hurt anyone else.” The reporter scribbled notes and asked, “Is there anything more you want to say?” Larson rubbed his hand across his face and added, “We can’t stand in the middle of the street with our guns drawn, so it has to be done like this.” He turned and walked away from the reporter.

  Mert Thomas was more vocal. “It would be a relief if I could say that I never have to deal with this again, but I feel there is something else brewing. I hope I’m wrong. If it comes back again, I will come on crutches or a wheelchair or I’ll crawl, but I will be there.”

  CHAPTER 38

  For the next four weeks John Huggins sat in his solitary cell, working feverishly and more intensely than a law school graduate preparing for his bar examination, in his attempt to persuade Judge Perry to overturn the sentence and spare his life.

  On Monday, August 26, 2002, one month to the day after the jury voted that Huggins should pay with his life for taking the life of Carla Larson, Huggins was permitted to return to court and once again face Judge Belvin Perry.

  In the grave atmosphere of the solemn room, Huggins stood before the same judge who would pronounce the final order of these courtroom ordeals in a few weeks.

  Continuing to serve as his own attorney, John Huggins was fully expected to present witnesses favorable to him, who would offer reasons that his life should be spared and that he be sent to prison for life, instead of being executed.

  As usual, Huggins had a surprising response and told the court that he had no witnesses to present in this hearing.

  The convicted murderer stood before Judge Perry and stated assertively that prosecutor Jeff Ashton should be disqualified. He denounced the prosecutor for his conduct in representing the state in the case against him.

  Judge Perry passed over this and had Huggins move on.

  Rising to his full six-foot-height, Huggins implored Judge Perry to have the death penalty barred from his case.

  The judge patiently listened without commenting to everything Huggins presented.

  In a stirring plea the convicted Huggins went into a long commentary on the witnesses who appeared in his trial. He finally asked the judge to have each and every one of the witnesses be given polygraph tests.

  Judge Perry stared at Huggins in surprise and quietly rejected his request once more.

  With this rebuff, the ever-inventive murderer requested that he be permitted to interview the jurors himself. He told Judge Perry that this petition should not be denied, but the judge was unimpressed by Huggins’s arguments and ruled against any interviewing of the jurors.

  Seated in the front row, close to the proceedings, Phyllis Thomas leaned over to her husband, and with an expression of dismay, she whispered into his ear, “Just listen to him. . . . This is disgusting.” She pulled his arm and asked, “How can he do this?”

  Mert put his arm around his wife and calmed her with his own whisper: “He’s getting what he deserves.”

  Huggins spoke for three hours, presenting various arguments why his life should be spared, including his pitiable childhood. But after receiving no positive response from the judge, he finally halted his pleas.

  Prosecutor Jeff Ashton sat through much of the hearing and said simply that it was a waste of time.

  Jim Larson, who also attended the hearing, said that he stopped listening to Huggins. He said his mind was focused on picking up his little daughter, Jessica, and having dinner. “I’m not angry,” he stated. “I have to get on with my life. I’ve stopped worrying about it.”

  At the conclusion of the proceeding, Judge Perry announced that he would hand down his sentence for John Huggins on Thursday, September 19.

  Subsequently Judge Perry considered that since John Huggins presented no witnesses to speak on his behalf, there was no convincing presentation of mitigating circumstances. The judge wanted to ensure that every measure be taken to prevent any question arising about John Huggins not receiving every consideration for his submission.

  With the constitutionality of the death penalty issue still uncertain in Florida, the judge was extremely cautious.

  Accordingly, he ordered a presentence investigation that would look into the question of mitigating circumstances for John Huggins.

  CHAPTER 39

  As the late-summer August days drifted into September, the participants in the John Steven Huggins trial returned to their everyday lives, tensely awaiting Judge Belvin Perry’s designated date of September 19.

  John Huggins remained in jail, filling his time corresponding with his pen pals via e-mails, just whiling away the hours until his fate was decided.

  Jim Larson quietly resumed his daily routine at his College Park home, caring for his little daughter, Jessica, dressing and feeding her, transporting her to and from her day-care center. He returned to work at his job at Home Depot, still adjusting to his life without his beloved wife, Carla. His evenings were spent tending to Jessica.

  Ada Larson and the Thomases returned to their homes in Pompano Beach, Florida, attempting to readjust to their lives as best they could. Their only comfort was the visits they had with Jim and their granddaughter.

  ASA Jeff Ashton and public defender Bob Wesley continued in their legal practices, patiently awaiting the final judgment from Judge Belvin Perry.

  They all felt the heavy pall hanging over their lives every day. They were all just marking time until that all-important September 19.

  Judge Perry found himself in one of the most trying ordeals that a criminal-court judge must face. The dedicated jurist continued with his other judicial responsibilities, carrying on his official duties, presiding over the various cases that came before him. At the same time he devoted himself to considering the various pros and cons of the death penalty for John Huggins.

  He spent hours poring over the trial transcripts, the report from the presentence investigators, meticulously studying each factor of the aggravating circumstances and the mitigating circumstances, and weighing the values of each.

  The September weather in Florida was ideal, with its sketchy white clouds floating in the soft blue skies, emphasizing the beauty for which Florida has become known.

  On September 19, in the quiet of his Orlando courtroom, Judge Belvin Perry prepared to announce his decision.

  From his seat at the bench, he looked down over the gathered group. At the state’s table Jeff Ashton and Jim Altman nodded to him. Sitting at the defense table was convicted killer John Huggins, dressed in navy blue coveralls; the guards removed his handcuffs. Beside him were his former defense attorneys public defender Bob Wesley and associate Greg Hill.

  As he expected, Judge Perry saw Ada Larson seated in the front row beside her son, Jim, along with Phyllis and Mert Thomas. Members of the Huggins family sat somberly in another part of the courtroom. Assorted representatives of the media sat poised with their pens ready. All were gazing at the judge attentively, waiting for his pronouncements.

  Judge Perry adjusted his large black-rimmed glasses and began to read from his eighteen-page decision.

  He began with a history of the case from the grand jury’s indictment of John Huggins through the first trial, conviction, sentencing and overturning of that verdict, and the granting of the new trial. The judge explained each change of venue for the two trials. He then launched into details of the jury’s findings of the present trial, how they voted on each issue.

  Judge Perry explained that he fully examined the testimony, evidence and all other matters in this case as to the presence or lack of aggravating and mitigating factors.

  Additionally, the judge examined other aspects of the defendant’s character, record and other circumstances of the offense. He said he also carefully considered the presentence investigation report.

  The judg
e pointed out that he did not consider any evidence or testimony presented at the previous proceedings, other than that offered for mitigation.

  Having established the background for forming his opinion, the judge launched into the details, taking each item separately.

  He went into the specifics of the five aggravating circumstances that the state enumerated, meticulously explaining their meaning:

  1. The capital felony was committed by a person previously convicted of a felony and placed on felony probation.

  The judge cited Huggins’s conviction in Osceola County for passing a worthless check, for which he received probation. There was also a conviction for possessing an unauthorized driver’s license, for which Huggins also received probation.

  The court found that the state proved this aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt.

  2. The defendant was previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence.

  Judge Perry enumerated Huggins’s nine convictions for robbery with a weapon, resisting arrest, battery on a law enforcement officer in Orange, Seminole and Brevard Counties. According to the judge, the state of Florida proved this aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Judge Perry looked up from his reading to face the courtroom, perhaps to gauge the reaction to his message so far, then continued:

  3. The capital felony was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of the crime of kidnapping.

  The judge recited a résumé of the details of what took place on June 10, 1997, with the disappearance of Carla Larson and concluded, “The record in this case clearly supports that Carla Larson was taken by force or threat of force, against her will and taken to the place where she was murdered and robbed.” Judge Perry found that this aggravating factor was present and proven by the state.

  4. The capital felony was committed for pecuniary gain.

  Judge Perry’s explanation delved into the theft of the Ford Explorer and Carla Larson’s jewelry. He asked, “Were these items—the Ford Explorer, the diamond ring, diamond earrings and necklace—just taken as an afterthought, and merely to facilitate the defendant’s escape? Or rather, were they purposely taken as a means of improving his financial worth and providing a benefit to the defendant?”

  His conclusion was that the murder was committed for pecuniary gain, and found this aggravating factor was present and proven by the state beyond a reasonable doubt.

  5. The capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.

  Judge Perry gave his interpretation of the meaning of those words and asked, “Was the murder of Carla Larson a conscienceless or pitiless crime and unnecessarily torturous to her?” He went back over the medical examiner’s description of what happened to Carla in those last moments, then quoted Henry David Thoreau, “Nothing is so much to be feared as fear.” He decided that the crime met the definition of heinous, atrocious or cruel, and found that the state proved this aggravating factor.

  At the conclusion of the reading of the aggravating circumstances, the judge continued on to the next phase, explaining that mitigating circumstances were any aspect of the defendant’s character, record or background, and any other circumstances of the offense, that would affect the imposition of the death penalty.

  Judge Perry stated that at the penalty proceeding the defendant presented one witness, Sandra Huggins, his sister, who testified that John Huggins provided some care to their father when he was ill with cancer. Huggins made a decision not to use life-sustaining measures with their father, but that decision was not necessary since the father died as a result of a fire. The judge cited that the defendant offered no other evidence of mitigation. He said he asked Huggins if he wanted his defense attorney Bob Wesley to come back into the case and present any mitigating evidence, but the defendant refused and said that he was satisfied.

  The presentence investigation Judge Perry ordered was to ensure fairness to the defendant. The judge considered the fact that the defendant’s parents were divorced, and at the age of nine, when his mother was unable to control her son, he was moved over to live with his father. The investigation revealed that the father was a heavy drinker and a strong disciplinarian. John lived in this home situation, with a stepmother who detested the boy and did not want him in her house.

  Judge Perry learned that the defendant, as an adult, abused alcohol and drugs.

  In reviewing the records, Judge Perry confirmed that Joanne Hackett, John’s mother, indicated that the defendant became known as a troublemaker. She felt that his contact with the juvenile system at age twelve caused him emotional damage.

  Although she had constant contact with her son, she said that she was unable to make the situation better for him.

  His mother confirmed that John had two failed marriages. The wives, the judge learned, also sometimes abused drugs and alcohol. Hackett felt that his wife Angel was the cause of some of his problems.

  She stated that her son was a good man, who helped to establish and finance a church.

  The judge considered that the defendant’s sister supported her mother’s statements about John Huggins’s childhood. She added that the defendant had a very close, loving relationship with his father. She said that her brother “was a good father, a good man, that his problems were caused by women.”

  As Judge Perry continued reading his statement explaining his consideration, the audience in the courtroom shifted in their seats. Although they were intensely interested in what Judge Perry was saying, it was taking a long time and they were getting restless.

  But the judge was not going to be rushed. He had worked very diligently over his decision, and was going step by step to show how he arrived at it.

  The judge considered statements from Bobby and Sherry Burnette, friends of Huggins’s, who talked about his involvement as a missionary in Haiti, working in the medical clinics treating children. Their opinion was that John Huggins was a good man, with a good heart.

  The judge also read a statement from the Reverend Arlene Colter, pastor of Resurrection Ranch in Melbourne. Reverend Colter indicated that she first met Huggins when he helped baptize some people. He was quite young, but he stopped at the ministry periodically and brought food and clothing for the needy. She added that the defendant helped start a church in Oviedo, and she felt that he was a Christian.

  Also speaking for John Huggins was Susan Irbin, a friend of his through the missionary trips to Haiti. She knew Huggins for about fifteen years, and talked about his alcohol problems and his two former wives.

  Reverend Sandy Stafford was another friend of John Huggins’s who spoke up for him. She went on three or four missionary trips to Haiti with the defendant. She felt that Huggins was a good person.

  The judge read a letter from Barbara Parker, a novelist and pen pal of Huggins, in which she stated: “At my present age, I believe that I have acquired a certain sense about people, an ability to recognize what might be called evil when I hear it or see it. I’ve never sensed it in John Huggins. Without regard to his guilt or innocence in this or any other case, I can see that his lifestyle in the early to mid-1990’s took him on a decidedly downhill path.” She also felt the defendant had a definite talent in art.

  The judge summarized what the presentence investigation had uncovered, that the defendant had a troubled early life, followed by bad marriages and alcohol abuse. He also had a side of him that showed compassion for his fellow man, evidenced by his missionary work in Haiti and his work with Reverend Colter.

  The judge gave little or no weight to two factors submitted: that there was no sexual attack and no weapon was used, nor to the fact that Huggins was fifteen years old when sentenced to an adult-male prison.

  Other mitigating factors submitted were Huggins’s positive attitude toward people of other races, offering as proof his mission work in Haiti. Also the suggestion that John Huggins could contribute to the prison community if given a sentence of life without parole. Judge Perry found that
these constituted a mitigating factor and gave it some weight.

  Offered as mitigating factors were the facts that John was struck by his father and may have been abused as a child, that he may have witnessed violence toward his mother, that he endured difficult family separation as a child, that he was as an adult a caring parent, a loving stepfather and the sole surviving parent of his two children. The court gave those some weight.

  Several other factors put forth as mitigating showed that Huggins was an active participant in religious functions, that he contributed his inheritance and more to the church, that he was active in the “Love a Child” ministry in Florida, that he served sick children and the poor in Haiti, that he served the homeless through contribution and labor. The court gave some weight to all of those factors.

  Finally Judge Perry arrived at the awaited moment—his conclusion after the lengthy, detailed presentation.

  He explained that he carefully weighed and considered each aggravating circumstance and the mitigating circumstances in attempting to decide the appropriate sentence to impose in light of all the evidence presented at the trial and sentencing hearing. He also considered the jury’s verdict as to imposition of the death penalty for the first-degree murder of Carla Larson. The judge, very mindful that a human life was at stake, found that the aggravating circumstances greatly outweighed the mitigating circumstances heard by the court.

  Officially, he ruled on Count I, “John Steven Huggins, you have not only forfeited your right to live among us as a free man, but under the laws of the state of Florida, you have forfeited your right to live at all.