Evidence of Murder (28 page)

It was Friday and most people in the courtroom were looking ahead to the weekend break after this penalty phase of the trial.

Jeff Ashton, confident of the progress of the prosecution, rose and called Phyllis Thomas to testify, asking her to express in her own words how her daughter’s death affected the family.

The bereaved mother spoke emotionally about her beloved daughter, how the family was forever changed and how much they all missed her. There was great sympathy in the courtroom for the woman as she spoke lovingly about how special her daughter was and what she meant to all of them.

Ashton also called Carla’s dear friend Kristi Lovell, who spoke tearfully of their friendship over many years and what it meant to her.

John Huggins did not ask any questions of either Phyllis Thomas or Kristi Lovell.

Jim Larson was next on the witness stand. He spoke in a subdued voice about how devastating the loss of his wife was to him and their daughter. When he concluded, he sat calmly, prepared to face the self-appointed defender John Huggins.

The tension in the courtroom was heavy, and it was so quiet it was as if every person in the room were holding his or her breath.

Huggins strode to the podium proudly, like a gladiator who had triumphed in a life-challenging contest.

One reporter observed, “Look at that son of a bitch. He’s got a helluva nerve. You’d think that he just won a seat in the senate.” His fellow writers snickered in agreement. But the big questions in their minds were “What in the world is he going to ask Jim Larson? What can he possibly ask him?”

In a friendly approach, as though the two men were lifelong dear buddies who had only a minor difference of opinion, Huggins inquired affably, “How long have we been going around in circles with this case?”

The quiet, soft-spoken Jim Larson, a bit startled by the question, hesitated and then responded, “Quite a while . . . five years.”

Taking a step closer to the husband of the woman he brutally murdered, Huggins directed defiantly, “Please look at the jury and tell them what sentence would be appropriate in this case.”

Like an unleashed tiger sprung from its cage, Jeff Ashton was on his feet. “Objection,” he shouted.

Judge Perry quietly sustained him.

Ignoring his setback, the convicted Huggins brazenly continued, “Was there a plea offer made in this case?”

Again Jeff Ashton was on his feet, objecting. And again Judge Perry sustained the prosecutor.

The reporters, who immediately picked up on that question, whispered to each other, “Did you know about that? Do you think it’s true? What could he have been offered?”

Huggins didn’t ask Jim Larson any further questions, but he successfully imparted to the jury that the state offered him a deal that he turned down.

He cockily turned from the jury and sat down.

The courtroom remained quiet, still shocked by the bizarre sight of Huggins questioning the husband of the woman he was convicted of killing. It seemed almost a travesty of justice for Huggins to have any contact at all with Larson.

Huggins had only one witness speaking for him, Sandra Jo Huggins, his sister. The thirty-six-year-old woman was currently serving time in the Levy Forestry Camp near Ocala, Florida, for a DUI manslaughter conviction. In January 1999 Sandra Jo lost control of her truck at Lake Panasoffkee, killing her thirteen-year-old passenger. She is scheduled for release in May 2010.

In a clear-cut bid to create sympathy for John and the Huggins family, the testimony brought out that their father suffered from colon cancer, but his death occurred in a fire. And another Huggins sister died in a car accident.

At the conclusion of her testimony, John Huggins gave only a brief forty-second summation to jurors and sat down.

Prosecutor Jeff Ashton addressed the jury, explaining this second phase of the trial, which was to determine the sentence for John Huggins.

The defendant, representing himself, pushed his chair back from the defense table, prepared for whatever Ashton was about to suggest or propose.

Bob Wesley and Greg Hill, Huggins’s former attorneys, sat silently beside him, alert and ready to consult if called upon.

At the front-row audience section, Jim and Ada Larson gripped hands, as did Phyllis and Mert Thomas. It was the end of a long ordeal for these family members, and they were simply glad to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Jeff Ashton continued explaining to the jury that they had to think of the two phases of the trial separately, because they had to do those two acts separately.

Ashton went on to specify the issue of aggravating circumstances, pointing out that in this case there were five, and indicating that the jurors would be required to determine whether the state proved them beyond a reasonable doubt.

One by one, Ashton defined the five separate aggravating circumstances in full detail, and specifically gave examples of Huggins’s involvement in each.

Jeff Ashton fervently described the horror Carla Larson suffered in her last hours and minutes, asking the jury to imagine not just how she was killed, but the terror that she went through from the time she met up with Huggins through the time her life ceased. “And that’s very difficult, because to think about what Carla went through is to imagine one’s worst nightmare.”

Huggins interrupted, “Objection, Your Honor.”

In a quiet voice Judge Perry asked, “Basis of objection?”

Huggins answered, “Improper statement.”

Judge Perry said, “Overruled.”

Ashton went on describing the agony the victim went through emotionally.

This brought Huggins to his feet again. “Objection, Your Honor.”

With a patient tone the judge asked, “Same objection?”

“No.”

Judge Perry inquired, “Basis of objection?”

Authoritatively Huggins stated, “State of mind of the victim is not a material fact.”

“Overruled,” declared Judge Perry.

Ashton continued, “It’s not just physical pain, it is emotional and psychological torture that you must consider. You must ask yourselves, ‘What was Carla thinking?’ ”

Phyllis Thomas’s head dropped as she dabbed the tears from her eyes, envisioning her lovely daughter’s painful last moments of life.

Ashton watched the jury as they absorbed his dramatic words, and then he described for them his reasonable inferences as to how and where Carla was murdered.

He dramatically painted a word picture of her strangulation, how she was conscious and aware of what was happening to her. “We know that she had time to think. And we know that when Mr. Huggins put his hands around her throat, she was awake, she was alert and she knew what was going on.”

Interrupting Ashton’s graphic and explosive presentation, John Huggins rose and said, “Objection. Can we approach?”

With the judge’s permission, Huggins spoke at the bench with all the bravado of a “jailhouse lawyer.”

“Judge, I believe this is improper argument. Going to the state of mind of the victim, in
Stone versus State,
his case was overturned on the basis of improper argument. The state of mind of the victim at the time of the offense.”

Ashton responded, citing other cases that disputed Huggins’s argument. Again Judge Perry overruled the objection.

The prosecutor continued reviewing all of the aspects of aggravating circumstances, as well as mitigating circumstances, stating, “It will be your duty to determine whether any mitigating circumstances have been proven.”

Ashton told the jury that the weight of the evidence presented to them in aggravation in this case was overwhelming. “You have a man with a lengthy record of violent criminal conduct going back to 1979, with eleven convictions for armed robbery; you’ve got a man who kidnaps a woman, murders her in a way that I do not want to further describe. For financial gain. To take her car. . . . The death of Carla Larson is beyond comprehension.”

The prosecutor concluded: “Based upon the laws and based upon the facts that you have seen, the only reasonable verdict is to find that the aggravating circumstances in this case so far outweigh any mitigation presented, that the only reasonable, the only legal, recommendation you can make is death.”

Ashton thanked the jury and returned to his seat at the state’s table, satisfied that he did his best in presenting the state’s case. Now it was up to the jury.

The jury filed out to begin their deliberations.

John Huggins sat motionless in his chair, silent and passive.

Jeff Ashton was weary from the strain of delivering his arguments, but he was also keyed up. This was the culmination of so many months of preparation.

He turned to Jim Altman. “I wonder how long the jury will be out.”

“There’s no telling,” Altman replied.

Ashton stood up. “C’mon, let’s stretch our legs. I’m too antsy to just sit here and wait.”

“I know how you feel. These waits for juries can be agony.”

“Yeah,” Ashton agreed, then grinned. “But not as bad for us as for Huggins.”

“You got that right,” Altman replied.

It was only a few hours, but they seemed to drag. Finally word came that the jury was ready.

The courtroom settled into an expectant quiet as the jury silently returned to their box, looking straight ahead, avoiding eye contact with any of the adversaries, giving no hint or clue of their verdict.

Jim Larson gripped his mother’s hand, the pressure revealing his anxiety. The Thomases also held each other’s hands, awaiting the pronouncement that would spell the end, they hoped, of this ordeal that they had lived for the past five years.

Breaking the tense silence, Judge Perry asked, “Have you reached a verdict?”

The jury foreman stood, faced the judge and answered, “Yes, Your Honor, we have.”

The verdict paper was passed to the judge by the bailiff. Perry studied the form, then passed it back to the foreman.

“How say you?” the judge inquired.

The foreman quietly told the judge that the jury voted John Steven Huggins the death penalty.

A burst of chatter from the spectators, in reaction to the verdict, broke out over the entire courtroom as Judge Perry gaveled for order.

As quiet finally emerged, Judge Perry courteously thanked the jury for their devoted service and excused them. Accordingly, they filed out of the courtroom.

As the jurors departed, heading for different exits, the press swarmed around them, jabbing microphones into their faces and holding recording devices before them, to get firsthand accounts of what transpired in the jury room.

It became known through the continuous pressing of the jurors that as a body they voted nine to three that John Huggins should be executed.

During the melee of the postsentencing activities, John Huggins managed a weak smile and a wave to his mother and his children before he was escorted, cuffed and restrained, from the courtroom back to a jail cell.

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.”

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.