Evidence of Murder (23 page)

Culhan held up his thumb in agreement. “What are you going to have, Jeff? I think we earned a good dinner.” He smiled.

“I’ll stick with a steak.”

“Me too. Can’t go wrong with that.”

While they waited for their food to arrive, Ashton said, “I don’t think today would have been so intense if our friend Shashi Gore were not so thorough and meticulous. He does run on sometimes.”

“Hey, he was a great witness. I agree that he tends to be a bit too technical sometimes, but overall he presented his information and was very effective.”

“He always is,” Ashton agreed. “He’s a nice guy and you can depend on him to do an excellent job. He knows his business. But he can wear you out.” Ashton grinned. “It’s early to bed for me tonight.”

“That is an excellent idea.”

After a restful night the two prosecutors were totally revived and ready to continue when court convened; they were dressed in their well-tailored suits and sober neckties.

Ronald Weyland was the next witness. He is a specialist in forensics and is seriously devoted to his work. He has a pleasant, friendly smile, and is a trim, 5’9”, well-built man, with a round face and healthy reddish complexion.

Prosecutor Ted Culhan, in his usual clear voice, asked the witness for his name, occupation and his special assignment.

He answered, “Ronald Weyland,” and stated that he was a deputy with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department for six and a half years, working with the forensic unit.

Asked to explain his work, Weyland replied, “I respond to crime scenes; I take notes, photographs and document the scene, process evidence.”

“Were you assigned to be the crime scene technician on June 10, 1997, in the murder case of Carla Larson?”

“Yes,” he answered, very self-assured.

The stocky prosecutor asked a series of questions relating to Weyland’s procedures in the case, and the witness explained that a command post was set up on that date, composed of a large number of deputies, Disney employees and civilians, as well as canines, along with several specially trained persons with vehicles and a metal detector to search the wide area.

“We were prepared and determined. We had a major area to examine, and we were going to go through all of it thoroughly.”

After a number of questions about the search, the finding of the body and the subsequent investigation, Culhan asked, “Did you assist employees of the television show
America’s Most Wanted?”

“Yes, I did.”

“And for what purpose?”

The forensic specialist thought for a moment and answered, “To re-create the scenario and the scenes to depict what might have happened, and possibly develop leads that could be used in solving the case.”

Culhan moved to questions about Weyland’s work on the burned Ford Explorer, which he explained in detail.

The prosecutor asked about the search of Faye Elms’s home, where Angel Huggins was living. Weyland explained the purpose of the search.

Culhan had Weyland relate the removal of the jewelry and photographing of the electrical box in which the jewelry was discovered. Weyland explained how earlier they searched two electrical boxes in the shed but not the one low to the floor where the jewelry was found. He emphasized that when an investigation is under great pressure, sometimes something can be overlooked.

Ted Culhan turned the focus to the area where the purse was found, and he established that this purse was Carla Larson’s. The prosecutor inquired if the witness took pictures of the purse, and also if he took the item into evidence.

“Yes, I did,” Weyland answered.

After receiving permission from Judge Perry, Culhan showed the purse to the witness, who nodded his head, confirming that it was the purse being discussed.

“Did you take any of the contents out?”

The witness replied affirmatively and described several items that were in the purse.

Defense lawyer Tyrone King objected and an exchange ensued about the contents of the purse. The prosecution and defense teams wrangled back and forth until Culhan, feeling that the arguments were impeding the flow of his questioning, finally suggested, “I can move on to something else. We can do this tomorrow morning.”

Judge Perry looked at the defense, then made a quick appraisal of the prosecution and in a low voice said, “Okay.”

Culhan returned to questioning Weyland, asking various questions about photographs that the witness took of the contents of the purse. The defense objected to almost every question.

Mercifully, Judge Perry, seeking a way out of the endless cross fire, asked, “Is this a convenient point for you to stop?”

When it was agreed, the judge sent the jury out of the courtroom.

After the jury left, Ted Culhan rose and announced, “Let’s take up the contents of the purse now.”

Tyrone King stood and stated, “Your Honor, the defense objects to all of the exhibits. There is argument as to each piece. Our objection is to the relevance of the miscellaneous paper contents in the purse.”

Ted Culhan, speaking directly to Judge Perry, responded that the relevance was that the prosecution believed that the purse was discarded intact, hastily thrown out the window of the car while the defendant was speeding away from the scene. He said that from the evidence it was reasonable to infer that the defendant tossed the purse out the window as he was going down off the ramp of the parkway. Culhan argued that apparently nothing was removed. This was in keeping with the theory that the defendant made a very quick movement back to the Days Inn, which the prosecution thought was a reasonable inference from the evidence.

The defense argued that there was no evidence to show that nothing was removed from the purse, or that the purse was discarded in a quick manner.

The judge overruled King’s objection, but the wrangling continued, with the defense attorney still objecting as to relevance.

Culhan’s argument was that the purse contained credit cards, which a thief would take if he rifled through the purse.

The arguing went on and on, with the judge overruling the defense on each point.

As the fray continued, the crowded courtroom became more and more restless, until Perry once again rapped for order with a threat to clear the room.

When court resumed, Deputy Weyland was still on the witness stand. The questions asked of him were about the items he ID’d that were inside the victim’s purse, including a four-leaf clover, Carla Larson’s driver’s license, a pen and her Social Security card. Culhan asked the court to admit these items into evidence.

Defense lawyer King objected vehemently, but he was overruled by the judge.

King’s cross-examination concerned Weyland’s search of the Elms house, his methods and specifically on the electrical wall boxes. He asked countless questions that finally began to tire the witness.

King asked, “Did you find any jewelry?”

“No,” he answered tersely.

The defense lawyer asked about other items collected by the investigator. He concentrated on some envelopes of letters written by John Huggins to Angel, asking about their use for DNA. He also asked about blood samples, including one taken from Jim Larson.

Culhan sprang to his feet. “Your Honor, I object to this as being beyond the scope of direct examination.” There was a low fire in the prosecutor’s voice.

Judge Perry ruled, “Sustained.”

King asked interminable questions about items taken into evidence: fingerprints, swabs, items from the purse, jewelry, tests made for latent prints, trace evidence, hair fiber.

Finally Culhan objected, and the judge sustained his objection.

After a short requestioning session by Culhan, and another brief cross-examination by King, Weyland left the witness stand.

As the two prosecutors ate their lunch, Culhan suggested, “I’m thinking maybe we can drive down to Orlando for the weekend. What do you think?”

“That sounds great,” Ashton answered. “I sure would like to spend a little time with my family, get caught up on all their activities. I feel like we’re totally isolated, out of touch with the rest of the world. I haven’t read a newspaper or seen TV news in so long; I haven’t the foggiest idea of what’s happening outside of that courtroom. A change of subject would be a welcome relief, give me a chance to recharge my batteries.” He laughed.

“It all depends on the way the trial goes. If the judge calls a Saturday session, it wouldn’t be practical to go just for Sunday.”

“I know, and he’s pretty determined to move this trial along expeditiously,” Ashton said wistfully.

“We’ll just have to play it by ear. Now, to more practical matters, I’m starved. Gotta keep up my strength.” Culhan grinned.

“Yeah, I could do with something hearty.” Ashton laughed. “And when we get back to the suite this evening, I’m going to call home.”

 

 

Deputy Todd Howard of the Brevard County Sheriff’s Department took the stand and was sworn in.

Ted Culhan questioned him about the blazing destruction of the Explorer on June 26, 1997. He asked about the fire and the condition of the burned vehicle. Then he showed the witness a photo of the destroyed automobile, asking him to confirm whether that was the way it looked when the fire was out.

“Yes, sir, that’s it,” Howard confirmed, nodding his head.

With permission from the judge, Culhan introduced an aerial photo of the area where the vehicle was burned. He asked the witness to point out the location of the vehicle, which he did. The photo was entered into evidence without objection.

In his cross-examination, defense attorney Wesley viewed the photo with Deputy Howard and asked specific questions about the location, trying to establish it specifically. “For the jurors’ reference, this is the same general area as Kennedy Space Center? And right here to the south would be Patrick Air Force Base?”

“Yes, sir.”

After a number of follow-up questions, the attorney concluded.

Prosecutors Culhan and Ashton called several expert witnesses for technical questioning about the destroyed Ford Explorer.

The first was Charles LaCorte, identified as a lieutenant with the Bureau of Fire and Arson Investigation, Division of State Fire Marshal. He testified to his findings about the vehicle. In his distinctive voice LaCorte gave an involved account, relating the technical observations that he made about the obvious arson and the condition of the vehicle, specifying the open doors, raised hood, burned interior, melted submerged tires and the dent in the rear left side of the body.

He was followed by Virginia Casey, crime scene investigator and latent fingerprint examiner with the Brevard County Sheriff’s Department, who explained how her collecting of evidence involved the burned SUV. Casey made clarifying statements, further explaining the arson destruction to the Explorer, plus detailing her extensive work in the search for fingerprints.

Next came Sandy Cawn with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, assigned to the forensic unit. Her testimony dealt with her participation in the collection of Carla Ann Larson’s jewelry at Faye Elms’s residence in Melbourne, Florida. This aspect of their work with the jewelry evidence would prove to be of greatest importance in the case against John Huggins.

At the conclusion of the technical experts’ testimony, the state called Annette Moore, the neighbor who lived across the street from Faye Elms’s home in Melbourne. Moore, a fortyish woman with dark brown eyes and hair, eagerly recounted seeing the white Ford Explorer parked at the Elms residence on June 11, 1997. She seemed like the kind of person who missed nothing in her neighborhood.

The solemnity of the courtroom changed to levity with the appearance of the next witness, Derek Hilliard, who shared a home with Annette Moore. Before testimony began, defense attorney Bob Wesley objected to the T-shirt that the witness was wearing. Printed on the front of the shirt was
REAL FEAR
and on the back
HE WHO DIES WITH THE MOST TOYS, STILL DIES.

Wesley stated, “It’s prejudicial.” He claimed that it was a religious message and “deals with the subject of death.”

After heated discussion the objection was overruled.

Hilliard’s testimony, which supported Moore’s observations, was that he also saw the Ford Explorer parked at the Elms home, across the street from his residence, on June 11, 1997.

Jeff Ashton and Ted Culhan relaxed at dinner that evening while waiting for the food. “I think it’s going well, don’t you?” Culhan asked.

“Yes, I do. We’re getting in all the main points we needed to make, and while it’s slow, it’s rolling like a tank, nice and steady.”

“We’ve got Kevin Smith tomorrow, which might be lengthy,” Culhan said.

“But good,” Ashton said. “That poor guy—he’s Wesley’s target for reasonable doubt.”

“Yeah,” Culhan agreed. “Wonder how he’ll like that.”

“Probably not his first choice.” Ashton smiled.

 

 

Prosecutor Ted Culhan walked slowly, deliberately, to the podium to face witness Kevin Smith, a tall, thin-faced man in his thirties, with long brown hair, worn in a conspicuous ponytail.

“Sir, could you please tell us your name?”

“Kevin Smith.”

The prosecutor lost no time in tying this witness to John Steven Huggins. “Mr. Smith, is John Huggins an acquaintance of yours?” he asked.

With Smith’s positive answer, Culhan continued questioning. “Did you know him in June of 1997?”

Smith said that he did. Culhan asked a number of questions, establishing where Smith lived, providing the Cocoa Beach address of the duplex and who lived with him.

“Kim Allred,” he answered.

Responding to employment questions, Smith stated that he worked for a lawn service, adding, “I’m a crew leader.”

Culhan continued with questions about Smith’s work hours, the stretch of territory along the Atlantic coast that he serviced—Titusville (twenty-five miles north of Cocoa Beach), south to Palm Bay (about forty miles south of Cocoa Beach)—as crew leader of a two-man crew.

Culhan’s questions brought out that at this particular time in June 1997, Smith was visited by family members, which included his parents and brother who came from Oklahoma City.

In answer to further questions, Smith stated that John Huggins arrived at his home on June 12, driving a white SUV, which he left there, after asking permission to do so. He volunteered, “It was a pretty neat vehicle and made me wonder about where and how John came by it.”

John Huggins scrutinized Smith with a piercing stare, his eyes unblinking, his expression inscrutable. Smith did not look at Huggins.

Culhan produced a photo of the section where the white Explorer was torched, and he asked Smith many questions relative to the vehicle and the territory where it took place, a short distance south of his home.

With that, Culhan concluded his examination of the witness.

Defense attorney Bob Wesley opened his cross-examination with a question about Smith riding a motorcycle in the area where the Explorer was burned.

Smith responded, “I’ve ridden there.”

There was a new wave of audience reaction. The surprise element of the motorcycle set the people buzzing.

Wesley asked Smith, “You had around your duplex a lot of motorcycles and motorcycle parts, didn’t you?”

Upon Smith’s agreement Wesley asked abruptly, “Who is Derek Smith?”

“He was a friend of mine,” Kevin answered. “Also rode bikes.”

“And did he live across A1A from you?”

“Yes,” Smith said, leaning back in the chair with a wary expression.

In the next series of questions that Wesley asked, he learned from the witness that Derek Smith, who was not related to Kevin, drove a white Ford Explorer. And Kevin Smith answered that Derek’s was identical to the SUV belonging to Carla Larson. Smith shifted in his chair, his manner somewhat defiant.

A tense silence fell over the courtroom.

The witness waited, a questioning look on his face.

Wesley had Kevin identify Derek Smith’s white Ford Explorer from a photo that he produced. The jury could see it later and identify it.

As Bob Wesley kept up his barrage of questions to Kevin Smith, the reporters began to speculate about the defense lawyer’s intention, and the agreement among the press was that Wesley was creating inklings of doubt for his client, John Huggins. By Kevin Smith’s admission that Derek’s SUV was identical to the vehicle that John Huggins parked at Smith’s home, which was later destroyed by fire, he was creating uncertainty for the jury by focusing instead on Derek Smith.

The defense lawyer stretched to his full height of 6’6” and continued with seemingly endless questions to Kevin Smith about June 10 and June 12, the days he worked.

The result was that Smith, hopelessly confused, stammered his answers senselessly. “It seems like that . . . I don’t know,” Smith babbled, “if I was or not (referring to the date), but I took that day off to get ready for my incoming family.”

“You just took Friday off?” Wesley sounded surprised.

“Yeah, you got to work—I mean, I’m having trouble with our accommodations—and Monday—since I’m in Jacksonville,” Smith prattled.

The defense lawyer continued without letup to press the totally confused Kevin Smith for answers, which failed to make much sense.

Wesley made an abrupt turn in his questions, asking, “You knew John Huggins because you were a drug supplier to John Huggins, is that right?” He waited, the courtroom frozen into silence.

“That’s a good way to put it,” came the meek reply.

John Huggins never took his eyes off Kevin Smith, but his face was impassive.

Wesley continued: “And your source for drugs was Derek. Is that right?”

“Yeah, it’s marijuana is what we’re talking about. Marijuana.”

“And that’s how you made your money, correct, sir?”

“No, no,” Kevin Smith denied. “It’s not correct,” he protested with a new spark of life.

Standing back from the lectern, Wesley asked commandingly, “Well—was Derek a drug dealer?”

With his eyes casting about the courtroom as though looking for a way to escape from this ordeal, Smith managed to say, “No, actually he was involved in the lawn business, too.”

As Kevin Smith sat mute, awaiting the next salvo from the defense lawyer, he wiped his perspiring forehead, undoubtedly wishing that he were any place other than here. Wesley followed up relentlessly. “What role did you play in distributing drugs for Derek?”

Ted Culhan, who listened silently to the haranguing of Smith by Wesley, reached the point of “enough.” He sprang to his feet, objecting, “Irrelevant. Impeachment by prior bad acts.”

In quick order Judge Perry ruled, “Sustained.”

Wesley turned the direction of his attack, asking Kevin Smith about his residence and the general area, which resulted in another confusing discussion. At the attorney’s direction Smith left the witness stand to approach a displayed photograph of the locale. The lawyer continued with repetitive questions before Kevin Smith was permitted finally to return to the witness chair.

John Huggins sat watching the barrage on his friend as though he were simply a disinterested spectator, not personally involved in this whole thing.

After a renewed merry-go-round of questions, Wesley asked Smith about knowing Angel Huggins. Kevin said he knew her as John’s wife, had seen her only once or twice.

Wesley asked, “In the summer of ’97, you were aware John Huggins was charged with this crime, correct?”

“Yes,” he mumbled, barely audible.

“And then after that time, Angel Huggins moved in with you and Kim, is that right?”

“No, that’s not correct, either,” Smith answered smugly, shaking his head.

Wesley asked, “She moved in with Kim?”

“I’ve heard so,” he responded in a sullen tone.

More rounds of questions continued, until Wesley asked, “Have you met with Angel Huggins in the past two months or so to talk about testimony in this case?”

Culhan objected but was overruled.

Smith stated flatly that when they met, there were no discussions of the case.

After a brief recess, court was resumed with the defense attorney continuing his examination of Smith.

Wesley showed Kevin a photograph and asked if it accurately depicted his appearance in 1997. Smith responded that it did, and he smiled proudly.

“In the summer of 1997, were you employed in the landscape business?”

“Yes.”

“You worked outside?”

“Yes.” He tilted his head, a questioning expression on his face that seemed to ask silently, “Where the hell would you work in the landscape business?”

“You usually have a dark suntan?”

“Yeah, I would say so.”

“All right. Also you and your girlfriend, Kim, liked to go across to the beach, too, when you had time to lay in the sun?”

The witness stared at the lawyer and, in a puzzled tone, answered, “Yes, we did.”

“So your personal preference was to have a suntan or a dark tan?”

Nodding his head, he stated, “Yes, I’d say so.”

“By your work and by your hobby?”

“Just kind of goes with it, yeah.”

“Okay. Mr. Smith, you wear your hair long, is that correct?”

“Yes, I do.” He straightened in the witness chair and answered defiantly.

“Is it in a ponytail right now?”

“Yes, it is.” He smiled.

“How long have you worn your hair in a ponytail?”

Smith rubbed his head, searching his mind. “Probably like six or seven years. Ever since I got out of the military, I started letting it grow. Had a lot of regulations there. I just quit cutting it.”

“And in June of 1997, was your hair that long?”

“Yes, it would be.”

Wesley asked about the sunglasses in the photo and Kevin said that he usually “put them on my visor.”

“Of your cap?”

“Yes.”

Murmurs in the courtroom by the onlookers speculated whether the defense attorney was trying to establish that Kevin Smith, not John Huggins, fit the description given by eyewitnesses of the man driving the Explorer on June 10, 1997.

Wesley turned to the subject of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department detectives questioning him.

“First evening they showed up I wasn’t there.” Smith explained that a card was left with his girlfriend and he called the OCSD and met with them the next afternoon.

Wesley charged that Smith was “not there because you were directly across the street watching them, is that right? At Derek’s house?”

“No, no, but I did go over to Derek’s house.”

“So there was not a time when law enforcement officers came to your home, you left?”

“No,” he answered vehemently.

Wesley changed course again. “What date was it that you say that John Huggins brought the truck to your house?”

“I think we all talked about it being the twelfth.”

“It was on a Friday?”

“Yeah.” (Actually June 12 was on Thursday, but no one seemed to catch that.)

“And you were just hanging out in your yard that day?”

“Well, yeah, I was finishing the last of my prep for my family coming to town. We were having a big Father’s Day party.”

Wesley asked about a man named Mike Varcadipane and was told that he was the owner of the lawn service Kevin worked for.

The defense attorney continued to question and confuse the witness, until finally, after repetitive introduction of the same questions, the session came to an end.

Kevin Smith walked out of the courtroom, passing John Huggins but avoiding making eye contact.

Prosecutor Jeff Ashton confidently moved to a position facing Detective Cameron Weir, who took the witness stand and was already sworn in to testify.

“Please state your name,” Ashton requested.

“Cameron George Weir.”

After identifying Weir as a detective with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, Ashton asked him many questions regarding the crime area where Carla Larson’s body was found.

Weir gave a long description about the details of the crime and his investigation.

Turning to another subject, Ashton asked if Weir had occasion to meet with Kevin Smith in the summer of 1997.

“Yes, I did,” he responded, his bright eyes alert.

Ashton then followed with a series of questions that included seeing Smith today and details about the length of Smith’s hair today, as compared with what it was in July 1997.

“If I recall correctly,” Weir projected, “his hair is longer at this time than it was then.”

The prosecutor, deeply interested in Kevin Smith’s hair and overall appearance, drilled away at the detective, asking, “Did the hair extend down below the collar, noticeably below the collar?”

“Yes, sir,” Weir confirmed with surety.

Ashton inquired, “When you met with Mr. Smith, did he have his hair in a ponytail as he did today?”

“At various times,” the detective responded. “I believe that he did.”

Ashton asked, “Now, did Mr. Smith give you the name of the person that he was working with on June 10, 1997?”

“Yes, he did.”

“And did you find that person?”

“Yes, I did.” Weir told him that it was Mike Varcadipane.

“Okay, sir. Now, did you speak to Mr. Varcadipane about Mr. Smith’s whereabouts on June 10, 1997?”

“Yes, sir,” Weir confirmed, nodding his head.

“And after that conversation, did you do any further investigation of Kevin Smith as a suspect in the murder of Carla Larson?”

“No, sir,” he answered in a positive, assuring voice. Weir was satisfied in his thorough investigation of this murder case that Kevin Smith had no part in the killing of Carla Larson.

Wesley began his cross-examination by referring to the photo of Kevin Smith that was previously displayed. He asked Weir, “Does that appear to be the way that Mr. Smith presented himself on June of 1997?”

“Yes, sir,” Weir affirmed authoritatively.

After more reexaminations and more cross-examinations over various fine points of Weir’s testimony, he was excused, the last witness of the day.