Return to Transcripts main page
Live From...
Carlie Brucia Killer Sentenced to Death in Florida Court
Aired March 15, 2006 - 13:59 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: It was a grisly crime, and all of us watched it begin, a child walking home, a predator making his move as a surveillance camera rolled and captured everything. Now that predator, the killing of 11-year-old Carlie Brucia, is about to learn his fate.
Live pictures right now inside the courtroom.
CNN's John Zarrella is outside that courthouse in Sarasota, Florida -- John.
JOHN ZARRELLA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Kyra, that is correct, the hour is now at hand for Joseph Smith. You can see him there sitting in the yellow jail jumpsuit, the camera pushing in on him, 39 years old, two days away now from his 40th birthday.
Smith, of course, convicted back in November of murdering 11- year-old Carlie Brucia. That kidnapping of Carlie Brucia was captured on 10 seconds of grainy video from a surveillance camera at a car wash here in Sarasota.
Smith is seen walking up to the girl wearing a mechanic's uniform. He grabs her by the arm and leads her away.
That videotape, of course, instrumental in finding Joseph Smith. Many tips came in. People identifying him from that video. Two days later, he was arrested, and then two days after that Carlie Brucia's body was found in a field by a church not far from where she was abducted.
Smith there sitting in a courtroom. To his left is his attorney, his public defender, Adam Tebrugge.
The prosecution there in the seats closest to us, the woman seated there, Deborah Johnes Riva, she was the lead prosecutor in the case. Dennis Nales sitting to her left.
Still waiting now for the judge, Andrew Owens, to come in. This could take quite a while, we're told, perhaps up to an hour. When the judge first comes in, he will have some procedural issues to go through, some house cleaning issues to go through before he actually gets to the sentencing phase.
Now, the jury back in November recommended in a 10-2 vote that Smith be given the death penalty. The judge has ultimate say in that, but it is likely that he will go along with that jury recommendation. It is incumbent upon a judge here in Florida by law to place very heavy weight on what the jury recommends.
You can see Joseph Smith again sitting there with his public defender. Very calm. His hands folded. Just chatting there with his public defender.
Again, awaiting judge -- the judge to enter the courtroom -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: Now, wasn't it last month during the hearing Smith broke down in tears, apologized for his crimes, and he also had told the judge that he had tried to kill himself before he abducted Carlie Brucia?
ZARRELLA: That's right, it was his spencer (ph) hearing, as they call it, and he spent about eight minutes talking in that spencer (ph) hearing addressing the court, told the court that he was deeply sorry for what had happened, that he was -- his wife was leaving him, that his business had folded up, and that it was literally in a drug- induced haze that he committed this horrible crime. So admitting to the crime.
And that, again, Kyra, is another piece of information there that, because he has admitted to the crime, it is likely that if he is sentenced to death it will be more of a fast track to Florida's death chamber, to the lethal injection here in Florida than otherwise. In other words, his appeal process will go much more quickly -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: All right, John. Well, this isn't going to go very quickly. There are some procedural things that have to take place. So we're going to come back to you.
But if you want to follow everything that's happening right now, you can go to CNN.com/pipeline. But when that sentencing is announced, we will go back to John Zarrella and these live pictures there in Sarasota, Florida.
Embers burn, winds increase and weary firefighters call for reinforcements in Texas. Much of the panhandle has been on fire since Sunday. At one point, more than 200 wildfires were burning, and so have numerous homes. At least 11 people are new dead.
CNN's Ed Lavandera has been on the story all week, but he met some people who know even more, even sooner than he does.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DANNY RICHARDS, DIR., HUTCHINSON COUNTY EOC: This is Sunday morning, about 11:30...
ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Wildfires erupt, and Danny Richards is staring at a frightening scene from the control room of the emergency operation center in Borger. Eight cameras normally used to track tornadoes capture a massive wall of smoke and fire threatening this small town northeast of Amarillo.
RICHARDS: This probably exceeded what we thought was the worst case scenario by three or four times.
LAVANDERA: Firefighting is a dirty business, low-tech roll up your sleeves kind of work.
RICHARDS: Emergency operations. This is Danny.
LAVANDERA: But from this room in the basement of City Hall, high-tech weaponry supports the frontline.
RICHARDS: When you see a fire break out, it's extremely important to get on it as quickly as possible.
LAVANDERA: Radar can capture the first glimpse of a fire.
RICHARDS: They produce enough smoke that they appear on our radar screen as clouds. If we would see a smoke plume begin, we would turn our cameras on to that area and try to get visual confirmation.
LAVANDERA: Firefighters then attack. Of course, Sunday's wildfire outbreak couldn't be controlled. The winds were too strong.
But back in the emergency center, Danny Richards could hear everything the firefighters were up against. Radio transmission is channeled into this room.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's still a lot of fire coming across this way.
It's starting back up, moving back towards the school.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The fire has jumped the highway on us.
LAVANDERA: In a matters of seconds, Richards was also getting a close look at the flames. Firefighters using satellite technology beamed pictures back instantly.
RICHARDS: Any time you have flame links from the ground to the top of six to 10-foot flames, then we know, you know, a little more information about what kind of fire that we're fighting.
LAVANDERA: The flames this past Sunday reached 12 feet. Danny Richards and the 150 firefighters in this area were outgunned. So they developed a new game plan to get the fire under control.
RICHARDS: There's a certain amount of low-tech firefighting that you have to do to get out and get your hands dirty to fight a wildfire. We try to support those men in the field with as much technology as we can.
LAVANDERA (on camera): Firefighters across the Texas panhandle will be on high alert today. The weather forecast calls for high winds and low humidity. A dreadful combination similar to what was seen here on Sunday when these massive wildfires first ignited.
Ed Lavandera, CNN, Amarillo, Texas.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PHILLIPS: Let's get straight to the newsroom. Carol Lin working a developing story for us right now. More severe weather -- Carol.
CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, Kyra. We are just monitoring a fire at Solomons Island. It's a resort area, a little fishing town about 55 miles south of Washington D.C.
And I'm trying to make out what that is. It could be one of the historic structures that you see on their Web site.
They've got an historic lighthouse there, as well as some other buildings. Kyra, that's all we know about the situation on the ground right now. But anybody who knows this area, it's a popular resort town where lots of Washington D.C. folks go to get away. And clearly, they're trying to tackle this blaze as we speak.
PHILLIPS: I'll tell you what, those winds were pretty heavy in D.C. yesterday, Carol. I know Reynolds Wolf has been following the conditions all across the country.
Those heavy winds don't help any of these type -- or any types of fires, whether it's what's happening right here via these live pictures, Reynolds, via WBAL, or what's happening with the wildfires in Texas.
REYNOLDS WOLF, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Absolutely.
(WEATHER REPORT)
It's really a big problem with what we're dealing with in places like text technical.
(WEATHER REPORT)
PHILLIPS: Wow. All right. Reynolds, thanks so much.
WOLF: You bet.
PHILLIPS: Let's get back to Carol Lin there in the newsroom.
More information on what's happening there on Solomons Island?
LIN: Yes. Unfortunately, this is going to sound familiar to anybody who's been there. Apparently, the Lighthouse Inn is on fire. That's probably the major structure that you're seeing right now.
And Kyra, also several boats caught fire there. It's considered a four-alarm fire right now. So far, no reports of any injuries, but we're going stay on top of this.
And, by the way, if anybody was planning on going to -- apparently, the local biological laboratory there was going to invite the public to learn about the local oysters. And you might want to call ahead because I don't think that's going to happen.
Kyra, back to you.
PHILLIPS: OK. All right. We'll continue to follow what's happening there via these live pictures of WBAL.
Carol Lin, thank you so much.
A lot happening with regard to weather and fires and the winds, whether it's Solomons Island or in Texas causing those fires to spread. Hard for firefighters to get a handle on them. We'll stay on both those stories.
Also, Americans preparing for a possible bird flu outbreak. We're going to talk about that straight ahead.
The news keeps coming. We'll keep bringing it to you.
More LIVE FROM next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIPS: A life or death decision in the murder of a child. We're just getting word actually that Joseph Smith has been sentenced to life in prison. Is that what I was just old?
All right. Let's listen in.
JUDGE ANDREW OWENS: The additional mandatory cost would be imposed. There's a $201 fine for domestic violence programs pursuant to Section 938.08, $151 to fund rape crisis centers pursuant to Section 938.085, $101 for crimes against children pursuant to Section 938.10, all of which are mandatory fines.
In addition, I would impose a civil restitution lean of $250,000 for the sexual battery conviction.
Additionally, the jury convicted Mr. Smith of kidnapping with the infliction of bodily harm and/or the commission of a felony on a child. The state has filed a notice that they wanted the defendant sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender pursuant to 775.082.
Is the state ready to proceed with that?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, Your Honor.
OWENS: All right. And I assume I should ask, Mr. Tebrugge, were you willing to stipulate as to the date of Mr. Smith's release from prison?
ADAM TEBRUGGE, JOSEPH SMITH'S ATTORNEY: Yes, sir.
OWENS: OK. And what date was that that you are willing to stipulate to?
TEBRUGGE: With the paperwork provided to me by the state attorney, Your Honor, it shows January 1, 2003?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's correct.
TEBRUGGE: I'm willing to stipulate to that date, Your Honor.
OWENS: All right.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And I do have the paperwork as well, judge, that I will file along with the stipulation in order that the PRR be given to the defendant as attached to the motion.
OWENS: All right.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It has the affidavit of last release.
OWENS: Yes. And you had previously filed a copy of that?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, sir.
OWENS: Does the state have anything else that they want to offer in that regard?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, sir.
OWENS: OK.
Does the defense have anything?
TEBRUGGE: No, sir.
OWENS: At this time, Mr. Smith, for the kidnapping with infliction of bodily harm and/or the commission of a felony on a child, that being Carlie Jane Brucia, the court determines by a preponderance of the evidence that you do qualify to be sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender, and I would sentence you to life in prison without possibility of parole with credit for time served.
The court further orders and adjudges that all sentences imposed at this time, that being the sentencing case number 03CF415, and the sentence in case number 04CF2129 for capital sexual battery of Carlie Brucia, and kidnapping with the infliction of bodily harm and/or the commission of a felony on a child, shall run concurrent with each other.
Mr. Smith, you have 30 days from today's date within which to appeal the sentences and the judgments rendered by the jury in these cases. If you wish to take an appeal and cannot afford an attorney, the court will appoint one for you.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Judge, may I present some orders as well for the capital sexual battery?
OWENS: You may.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I do have the sexual predator designation order, as well as the order for DNA sample that we would ask be imposed on counted one.
OWENS: All right.
Mr. Tebrugge, as it relates to the sexual predator designation order, did you have any statements that you wish to make as to that order?
TEBRUGGE: No, sir.
OWENS: All right.
At this time, the court having reviewed the order, the court would find that it would be appropriate and would enter that order.
And as to the DNA sample, the court would enter the order requiring the DNA sample.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Judge, I want to give you the court a copy of the guideline. Although he was sentenced as a PRR, I still prepared a guideline for the kidnapping, and I did include the VOP as well since we're under one sentencing event here.
OWENS: Does the state have anything at this point?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Nothing further, Judge.
I'll go ahead and give the court at this time an order for final judgment of restitution that I will be seeking the court to sign. This is regarding the crimes compensation trust fund, and have I shown this to Mr. Tebrugge as well.
And then, I would just ask to reserve jurisdiction for further restitution, although I don't believe we will be pursuing any further at this time.
OWENS: Mr. Tebrugge, do you have any objection to this amount of $5,902?
TEBRUGGE: I haven't had an opportunity to investigate it, Your Honor, but based upon the representations, I have no further comments to make.
OWENS: All right.
At this time, the court would order restitution and would reserve only an amount in the event that there are additional amounts of restitution due. I would enter the final judgment for $5,902 to the victim's compensation fund. Additionally, I would reserve jurisdiction to assess attorney fees if requested by the Public Defender's Office.
At this time, the court will proceed with the sentencing order for the remaining charge in case number 04CF2129 for which the defendant was convicted by the jury of first degree murder of Carlie Brucia.
The defendant appeared before this court and received a trial by jury which commenced on November the 7th and concluded on November 17, 2005. The jury convicted the defendant of the following crimes: murder in the first degree for the killing of 11-year-old Carlie Brucia; two, capital sexual battery of Carlie Brucia; and three, kidnapping of Carlie Brucia.
The penalty phase was conducted from November 28 through November 30, 2005.
On December 1, 2005, the jury recommended by a vote of 10-2 that the defendant be sentenced to death for the murder of Carlie Brucia. The court scheduled a spencer hearing for the week of February 13, 2006.
At the conclusion of additional evidence presented by the defense, and after consulting with his attorney, the defendant made a statement to the court regarding his sentence. The spencer hearing proceedings concluded after two days.
The court, having heard the evidence presented in the guilt and penalty phase of the trial, having heard and reviewed additional evidence presented at the spencer hearing, and having received and considered the sentencing memorandum from the state and the defendant, being fully advised of this court's duty and responsibility to give individual consideration to each every and aggravating and mitigating circumstance set forth in section 921.141 of the Florida statutes, as well as each and every applicable non-statutory mitigating circumstance, and having considered this information and arguments presented by counsel both in favor and in opposition to the death penalty, finds as follows.
Background facts.
On Sunday, February 1, 2004 at approximately 6:15 p.m., 11-year- old Carlie Brucia left a girlfriend's home on Mulani Boulevard (ph) in Sarasota, Florida, to walk home. To reach her home on Macintosh Road (ph), Carlie needed to walk along Bee Ridge Road.
After Carlie left, Connie Arnold (ph) saw her walking on Bee Ridge Road and called Carlie's mother, Susan Schorpen, to let her know that Carlie was walking home and that she was on Bee Ridge.
Concerned, Ms. Schorpen sent her husband, Steve Kansler, to pick up Carlie. Mr. Kansler went to the area where Carlie was last reported seen, but he never found her. And she never arrived home. Mr. Kansler began searching for Carlie, and after an hour and a half of not finding her, Mr. Schorpen called 911 for help.
An intensified search of the area lasted well into the night, but they could not find Carlie.
On February the 2nd, 2004, investigators returned to the area where Carlie was last reported seen. One area of interest was a car wash parking lot on Bee Ridge. Law enforcement learned that Mike Evanoff, owner of Evie's Car Wash, had several surveillance cameras installed throughout the grounds.
Mr. Evanoff viewed images from the cameras, and at 6:21 p.m. on the date in question, the images reveal a white male with dark, short hair and tattoos on both forearms taking Carlie by the arm and leading her away. Mr. Evanoff informed law enforcement of these images.
Law enforcement immediately released the images to the media and an Amber Alert was issued. Almost instantly, calls to a tip line began identifying the defendant as the man in the images based upon several characteristics, including his overall appearance, his tattoos, his walking gate, and other mannerisms.
As a result of these leads, Detective Toby Davis interviewed the defendant on February the 3rd, 2004. The defendant voluntarily answered questions concerning his activities on February the 1st.
Although an alibi witness appeared initially to corroborate the defendant's versions of his activities on February 1, within hours contradictions in the defendant's story began to surface and his alibi began to unravel. Furthermore, after the detectives finished questioning the defendant on February the 3rd, he was arrested for unrelated drug charges resulting from a consensual search of his vehicle and for violating the terms of his probation.
Despite increasing efforts to locate Carlie, including assistance from other law enforcement agencies such as the FBI, Carlie was not located. By now, she had been missing for three days.
Still, their efforts intensified and included numerous interviews of individuals who contacted law enforcement with information. One such individual was John Smith, the defendant's brother. He contacted law enforcement and provided a voluntarily statement to FBI agents on Wednesday, February the 4th.
On Thursday morning, February 5, John Smith visited the defendant at the jail for a private meeting with his brother and mother, Patricia Davis (ph). Later that same day, John Smith contacted one of the FBI agents and made arrangements to meet.
At the direction of John Smith, they drove to a church parking lot off of Procter Road (ph) in Sarasota. Once there, they remained in their vehicle and John Smith received a telephone call from the defendant. The defendant proceeded to provide his brother with specific landmarks on the church property to indicate the precise location where the body of Carlie Brucia could be found.
At this point, other law enforcement agents were called to the scene, and they discovered Carlie's body in the exact location the defendant had described over the telephone.
At this time, we'll proceed to the aggravating circumstances.
One, the capital felony was committed by a person previously convicted of a felony and placed on felony probation.
On March 6, 2003, the defendant entered a plea of no contest to possession of cocaine, a third-degree felony in Sarasota County case number 03CF415. The court adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to one year of drug offender probation to be followed by two years of regular probation.
In the pending case, the jury convicted the defendant of the crime of first-degree murder which occurred on or about February 1, 2004.
To establish this aggravating circumstance, the state called the defendant's probation officer, Linda Atkins (ph), to testify and introduced a certified copy of the defendant's felony conviction. The court finds the state has established this aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt and assigns it moderate weight.
The capital felony was committed while the defendant was engaged in sexual battery or kidnapping. The state has proven beyond any and every reasonable doubt that the defendant murdered Carlie Brucia while he was engaged in the commission of the crimes of kidnapping her and committing a sexual battery against her.
Surveillance cameras recorded the kidnapping of Carlie Brucia. Evidence presented at trial revealed that the defendant did not know Carlie and that he did not have permission or consent to take custody of her.
Following the abduction and transport of Carlie, the defendant bound her wrists and eventually her neck with ligatures. Her clothes were removed from most of her body, and she was left naked from the waist down. The defendant made statements indicating he had rough sex with Carlie, and his semen was discovered on the back of her shirt.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from these facts is that the defendant sexually battered this child.
While it is clear that the defendant committed these two crimes, this court is not affording this aggravating circumstance additional weight or doubling the aggravating circumstance because two separate crimes were committed. Instead, this aggravating circumstance is treated as one aggravating circumstance and is assigned significant weight.
The third aggravating circumstance, the capital felony was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest.
To prove this aggravating circumstance when the victim is not a law enforcement officer, the state must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the sole or dominant motive for the murder was the elimination of a witness. This factor focuses on the motive for the murder and it may be proved by circumstantial evidence from which the motive for the murder may be inferred without direct evidence of the offender's though process.
The evidence presented in this case leaves no doubt that the sole or predominant reason that the defendant killed Carlie Brucia was to avoid arrest.
When the defendant kidnapped Carlie from Evie's Car Wash, he did not wear a mask or cover his name badge, which was prominently displayed on his uniform, revealing the name Joe. At that time, the defendant had no idea his actions were being filmed by surveillance cameras. He only learned about the video later. Carlie had seen the defendant's face, knew his name, and could identify him.
The defendant took most of Carlie's belongings and disposed much them. When law enforcement and the medical examiner's office recovered Carlie's body at the crime scene, certain items belonging to Carlie were not found with her body, including her backpack and much of her clothing.
While the cause of death was ligature strangulation and the medical examiner testified that Carlie had ligatures on her wrists at some points, no ligatures were ever recovered at the crime scene.
During the trial, the state introduced a letter written in code by the defendant on April the 9th, 2005, to his brother. A crypt- analysis (ph) expert for the FBI and deciphered that in the coded letter, the defendant admitted taking the backpack and clothes and disposing of them in four different dumpsters. The defendant admitted that he dragged Carlie's body to the location where she was later discovered.
The defendant lied to Detective Toby Davis when initially interviewed. When Detective Davis asked the defendant questions about his whereabouts on February 1st, 2004, the defendant told a series of lies. He told Detective Davis he had visited his brother's house that evening, and denied having been involved in the abduction.
When he was shown a still picture from the video of the abduction, he said, "That looks like me, but it's not me." The defendant abducted Carlie from one location and transported her to another location to commit the sexual battery.
The evidence presented reveals that the defendant was driving his friend's vehicle on February 1st, 2004. Just before the abduction, the surveillance cameras at Evie's Car Wash picked up the vehicle driving west on Bee Ridge (ph) Road and then entering the car wash parking lot. The defendant spotted Carlie taking a shortcut through the car wash to reach her home.
At that point, he made the ill-fated decision to park the car, cut her off as she walked through the parking lot, snatch her and transport her to another location.
While the court may never know the exact sequence of events, the court has no doubt that this crime was initially sexually-motivated. Once the defendant finished committing the sexual battery against Carlie, he was faced with deciding whether to let Carlie live or die. At that point, Carlie was completely confined by the ligatures and could offer no resistance to him. She was no threat.
As she remained defenseless, subdued, and stripped of most of her clothing, the defendant could have walked away and left her. He even had the option of transporting her to yet another location and dropping her off. Instead, he made the life-altering decision to kill Carlie. Absolutely no other reason existed for the defendant to kill Carlie Brucia than to avoid arrest. Based upon the facts in this case, the court specifically finds that the defendant's decision was not based on reaction or instinct, but was motivated solely by his desire to eliminate Carlie as a witness. No doubt that he realized that if he were caught and convicted of kidnapping and capital sexual battery, he spend the rest of his life in prison.
In his alocution, the defendant told this court that on the day he murdered Carlie, he just wanted to die. The evidence presented in this case, however, reveals a far different story. His actions reveal that he valued the chance of living the rest of his life outside of prison walls, far above the life of an innocent 11-year-old child.
After killing Carlie, the defendant took additional steps to avoid detection, such as dragging her body into the wooded area, removing her personal items and the ligatures from her body and the crime scene and disposing of them in four different dumpsters.
In furtherance of his plan to avoid detection, the defendant lied to law enforcement when questioned about his whereabouts on February 1st.
After considering the totality of factors set forth above, the court finds that the state has proved this aggravating factor beyond and to the exclusion of each and every reasonable doubt. The court assigns this aggravating factor great weight.
The fourth, the capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel -- HAC. This aggravating fact over focuses on the circumstances of the murder from the unique perspective of the victim. When considering this aggravating factor, the court must focus on the victim's perception of the circumstance, not on the perpetrator's.
In determining the victim's mental state, a common sense inference may be inferred from the circumstances. With this in mind, the court must now determine whether the murder was a consciousless or pitiless crime and unnecessarily torturous to Carlie brucia.
This court is aware of case law which provides strangulation, when perpetrate a conscious victim involves foreknowledge of death, extreme anxiety and fear and that this method of killing is one in which the factor of heinousness is applicable; and that strangulation presents a prima facie case for this aggravating factor.
Dr. Vega's testimony. In attempting to conceptualize the ordeal suffered by Carlie Brucia at the hands of the defendant Joseph Smith, the court relied heavily upon the testimony of Dr. Russell Vega, medical examiner for the 12th Judicial Circuit. Dr. Vega testified that Carlie's death was a homicide caused by ligature strangulation.
Based upon the autopsy, he opined that there is a great likelihood that the perpetrator applied the ligature to Carlie's neck while standing behind her in a position somewhat above her. Dr. Vega also opined that Carlie had been sexually battered. He found subtle ligature -- excuse me -- subtle linear marks on her wrists, consistent with the application of ligatures indicating that her hands had been tied or bound. Dr. Vega found no defensive wounds on Carlie, and explained that the absence of the defensive wounds is accounted for by the use of the ligatures. In other words, he explained, with her hands restrained, the ability to move her arms in such a way as to shield herself from injuries was impeded.
Dr. Vega testified that after a ligature is applied to the neck, loss of consciousness generally occurs within eight to 10 seconds if the ligature is applied and held with enough force to occlude the blood flow. Death from ligature strangulation, however, is not instant, and generally takes two to four minutes to occur.
Dr. Vega opined that carlie was conscious when the ligature was placed around her neck, and that a thin ligature the size of a shoestring was probably used. In support of this opinion that Carlie was conscious when the ligature was placed around her neck, Dr. Vega relied upon the absence of other injuries, such as blunt force trauma to her head, which would have left her unconscious. Further, the wrist ligatures suggest that she had been restrained at some point prior to the ligature being placed around her neck.
The defense has argued that there are some murders that are worse and that if the especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating factor were to apply in this case, it would apply to every first degree murder case in the state. Frankly, this court could not disagree more. Carlie endured unspeakable trauma which began at the time of her kidnapping at Evie's.
Because of the surveillance cameras, Carlie's abduction was literally caught on tape. The image of the defendant taking her by the arm and leading her away will no doubt forever be etched in our minds.
Because of forensic evidence, we know the unfortunate truth of what Carlie experienced thereafter. From Evie's, Carlie was transported to at least one location, possibly more, and subjected to demeaning and cruel acts, including the binding of her hands, the removal of her clothes and being forced to engage in various sex acts by a man nearly four times her age and double her size.
During those acts, Carlie was unable to fight back. At 11 years of age, there is no doubt that she was aware of her dire predicament and that she had little, if any, hope of survival.
Any hope of survival Carlie may have clung to faded once the defendant placed the ligature around her neck. At this time, Carlie was conscious, but clearly in no position to fight back. Perhaps worst of all, Carlie knew she was going to die.
Although this court may never know exactly how long it took for Carlie to be rendered unconscious once the defendant placed the ligature around her neck, this child had already suffered unspeakable terror and physical suffering at the defendant's hands. Her suffering began at the time of the abduction, continued through the sexual battery, and throughout these final actions which ultimately caused her death. While only the defendant knows the full extent of the suffering he inflicted on Carlie that evening, the evidence presented to the court demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that Carlie's death was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.
Her death was consciousless and pitiless, and undoubtedly unnecessarily torturous. This aggravating factor has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, and has been assigned great weight.
The fifth aggravating factor, the capital felony was a homicide and was committed in a cold and calculated and premeditated manner, without any pretense of moral or legal justification. This aggravating circumstance of cold and calculated and premeditated focuses on the manner in which the homicide was committed. CCP, as it is called, may be established by the totality of circumstances.
On February 1st, the defendant borrowed his friend's station wagon, and while driving on Bee Ridge Road, spotted Carlie. He quickly turned the vehicle into Evie's Car Wash, parked and intercepted Carlie as she was making a shortcut to her home.
Her kidnapping was a deliberate, premeditated act. It was not an accident caused by panic or distress or even an afterthought. The defendant preyed upon a young, vulnerable victim and took the necessary steps to abduct her and use her for his own sexual gratification.
While the court may not be privy to each and every detail concerning the timing of the events on the night of Carlie's abduction, rape, and murder, the pertinent details are all too clear.
For the defendant to achieve his goal of preying on this young child, he drove Carlie to a remote location and tied her wrist with ligatures which he had with them.
Like the kidnapping, the rape was not an accident or motivated by the need to obtain more drugs. It was a deliberate act motivated by the selfish and violent desires of the defendant, Joseph Smith.
During the trial, Dr. Vega testified that death by ligature strangulation generally occurs as a result of the obstruction or occlusion of the arteries which take blood to the brain and of the veins which take blood from the head.
Further, strangulation may potentially obstruct or occlude the airways. Dr. Vega testified that his autopsy examination of Carlie revealed the presence of crisscross marks on the back of her neck. These marks indicate that when the defendant strangled Carlie, he likely stood behind her, kept hold of the ligature and crisscrossed it over behind her neck without ever tying it.
Further, to actually cause Carlie's death, Dr. Vega testified the defendant would have needed to apply continuous, manual pressure to hold the ligature in place. Throughout these proceedings, the defense has stressed that with ligature strangulation, loss of consciousness, generally occurs within about eight to 10 seconds. No one has disputed this fact.
What is crucial is the length of time it takes to exact death during ligature strangulation. Dr. Vega's testimony clarified that death from ligature strangulation is not instant, and generally takes two to four minutes.
He further stressed that once a victim is rendered unconscious, the pressure placed around the victim's neck must be maintained to cause death. Otherwise, recovery may occur. In other words, pressure must be maintained for minutes to cause death.
The defendant's actions were cold and calculated and premeditated and without any moral or legal justification. He held Carlie's life in his hands, not for eight to 10 seconds, but for minutes, and as each moment passed, he made a conscious choice to slowly and methodically deprive her body of the blood and air necessary to sustain life.
Throughout this entire time, Carlie was no threat to him. First, he subdued her with wrist ligatures he brought with him to the crime scene. Next, he committed the unthinkable act of strangling Carlie while she was rendered unconscious. If ever a victim could be described as defenseless and subdued, it was Carlie Brucia.
During these crucial moments, the defendant had adequate time to reflect on whether to spare Carlie's life. He had other options available to him, but for reasons we may never know, he simply chose to ignore them.
In fact, he not only chose to ignore those options, but the forensic evidence reveals that he held the ligature so tight around Carlie's neck that it dug into her flesh. He did not let go and ultimately carried out his senseless plan to end her life.
The court finds that the state satisfied each and every element of the cold and calculated and premeditated aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. The court assigns it great weight.
The sixth aggravating circumstance, the victim of the capital felony was a person less than 12 years of age. Carlie Jane Brucia was born March 16th, 1992. She was only 11 years old on February 1st, 2004, when she was brutally murdered by the defendant. The court finds that the state has proved this aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt and assigns it great weight.
Next we will go to the mitigating circumstances, starting first with the statutory mitigating circumstances. In the defendant's sentencing memorandum, the defendant asserts that two statutory mitigating circumstances had been established.
One, the capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. The extreme mental or emotional disturbance mitigating circumstance has been ... PHILLIPS: You have been watching live coverage of the sentencing phase for Joseph Smith. As you heard Judge Andrew Owens say in the past 30 minutes or so, life in prison, no parole for Joseph Smith, accused of -- convicted, rather, for abducting, raping, and killing 11-year-old Carlie Brucia.
You remember that Florida girl that we saw on that infamous security camera footage of Smith grabbing her by the arm and calmly leading her away just outside that car wash. It happened near Sarasota. She was walking home from a friend's house. As you know, her body was found a few days later.
John Zarrella outside the courtroom monitoring this as well. A lot of people wondering why the judge is going into so much detail, John -- every single detail. It's tough to listen to for such a long period of time, and just watching all the live reactions also, especially from Joseph Smith's mother.
ZARRELLA: Yes, certainly very difficult here for everyone in the courtroom to listen to this. Again, on the first charge, the kidnapping charge, he has life with parole. On the charge of sexual battery on a minor, life without parole. And then the judge went into the long, long recitation of what happened to Carlie Brucia, and then all of the aggravating circumstances with great detail, the strangulation in particular. Calling these crimes heinous, atrocious, and cruel.
So we are still waiting, Kyra, for the judge to give his sentence for the murder of Carlie Brucia. That is still the third count that is out there, and he has not given that sentence yet -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: And, Carlie Brucia's mother, I remember, she's been very outspoken since all of this began. But things have sort of taken a turn in her life as well. She's still in jail, isn't she?
ZARRELLA: Yes. It's a real tragic, tragic story. This whole family losing Carlie Brucia, and then a couple of months ago her mother, Susan Schorpen, was arrested over in Pinellas County, the St. Petersburg area, on prostitution and drug charges.
She was, according to the court, offered to go to drug court, but declined to go to the drug court. And instead she is still in jail awaiting a trial date for that crime.
And now, of course, the judge continuing with the mitigating circumstances in this case that probably being the drugs that Joseph Smith said that he had taken, so -- but a preponderance of overwhelming aggravating circumstances mounted one after the other. Six different aggravating circumstances that the judge assigned a tremendous amount of weight to -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: Carlie's stepfather, Steven, in the courtroom, right?
ZARRELLA: Yes. We believe he is in there. People did see him go in. I am not sure if her father actually went in or not. I have not seen her father, whether Mr. Brucia was in there or not. He lives up in the New York State area, I believe.
PHILLIPS: All right, John Zarrella. We'll continue to follow, of course, all the details as we listen in a little bit more. We'll talk after we hear the final charges.
JUDGE ANDREW OWENS, SARASOTA, FLORIDA: ...whatever steps he perceived as necessary to avoid detection. These steps included driving Carlie to a remote location, killing her, dragging her body into the woods, removing personal effects from her body, including the ligatures and disposing of several items in separate dumpsters.
The defendant even took additional steps, such as lying to law enforcement officers, concerning his involvement in Carlie's abduction. The defendant asserts that photographs taken of apparent track marks on the defendant after his arrest demonstrates that he was using drugs on the day of Carlie's death.
This argument is speculative. The defendant could have used drugs after he killed Carlie or before the time of his arrest. While the defendant may suffer from certain mental illness or emotional problems, no record evidence has been presented to this court to demonstrate that at the time the defendant killed Carlie he was under the influence of an extreme mental or emotional disturbance.
Further, the two witnesses who saw the defendant right around the time of Carlie's kidnapping noticed nothing unusual about his behavior, even though he had apparently received devastating news from his wife. Although the defendant may have suffered depression and sadness during the marital separation, the defense has failed to demonstrate how this condition rises to the level of an extreme mental or emotional disturbance under Florida law.
To establish this mitigating circumstance, the defense did not utilize expert testimony. In fact, the defendant waived the right to present the testimony of mental health experts retained on his behalf.
Upon consideration, there is no evidence that reasonably establishes the existence of this statutory mitigating circumstance. However, the court finds that evidence supporting the existence of the nonstatutory mitigating circumstance of having a history of mental illness has been established, and it will be discussed below.
The second statutory mitigating circumstance, the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired.
Case law concerning this mitigating circumstance provides the following guidance concerning its application. Mental disturbance which interferes with but does not obviate the defendant's knowledge of right and wrong may be considered as a mitigating circumstance. Like extreme mental or emotional disturbance, this circumstance is provided to protect that person who, while legally answerable for his actions, may be deserving of some mitigation of sentence because of his mental state.
The defendant asserts that he was substantially impaired as a result of his 10-year drug addiction and, in particular, from his use of cocaine on the day he murdered Carlie Brucia. To establish this fact, he relies heavily on statements he made to family members after his arrest in early February 2004.
Additionally, the defense relies on photographs of what could be track marks taken in various places on the defendant's forearms and hands at the time of his arrest on February 3 as evidence he was using drugs on February 1.
The defense called Dr. Katherine McQueen to testify about the general effects of cocaine on the body and an individual's ability to make decision. The court finds it significant that Dr. McQueen's testimony concerning the defendant primarily involved a general history of his substance abuse.
She testified that she intentionally chose not to discuss the events of February 1, 2004, with him and never asked him whether he had consumed drugs on February 1. Because of the general nature of Dr. McQueen's testimony and particular facts in this case, which are contrary to her opinion, Dr. McQueen's testimony is of little value to this court in evaluating whether the defense has established this mitigating circumstance.
Through self-reporting, the defendant has proved a majority -- has provided a majority of evidence supporting the existence of this mitigating circumstance. The court finds, however, the actions of a defendant may speak louder than his words.
In this particular case, the defendant's actions left a trail of evidence providing a detailed picture from which this court may determine the defendant's capacity on the day of Carlie's murder. Witnesses who saw the defendant on February 1 testified about the defendant's demeanor on that day.
Jeff Pinkus (ph) saw the defendant just hours before Carlie's abduction and killing, and was actually with him immediately after he spoke with his former wife. Mr. Pinkus testified that the defendant may have said she was making him effin crazy, but that he came out really not --didn't act upset.
According to the defense, however, during the course of that telephone conversation, the defendant learned his wife didn't want him. Ali Bazoo Makazuma (ph) testified that he saw the defendant on the afternoon of February 1 around 3:15 p.m. The defendant was in the backyard of the Makazuma's house picking fruit.
The evidence reveals that the defendant returned to their house around 8:15 p.m. In the interim the defendant left and committed the unspeakable crimes against Carlie. Inconceivably during his return visit, the defendant spoke with Mr. Makazuma about repairs to his vehicle for approximately 35 to 45 minutes. During this time Mr. Makazuma did not notice anything unusual concerning the way the defendant was acting or talking.
The defendant has viewed the images of the actual abduction of Carlie Brucia from Evie's Car Wash. The defendant's actions were purposeful, deliberate, and planned. Throughout the course of committing the crimes against Carlie, the defendant took systematic steps to avoid detection. These steps included driving Carlie to a remote location.
Even after her death, he dragged her body into a wooded area, removed personal effects from her body, including the ligatures, and disposed of various items in separate dumpsters. The defendant took additional steps, such as lying to law enforcement officers, concerning his involvement in Carlie's abduction.
Later the defendant was able to recall the exact location where he left Carlie and directed his brother, John Smith, to the location by phone. He even provided descriptions, such as landmarks, to assist his brother in finding the exact location.
The ability to recall detail to such a degree demonstrates that the defendant was not substantially impaired on February 1, 2004. The defendant asserts that photographs taken on February 4, 2004, revealing apparent track marks on the defendant demonstrate that he was using drugs on the day of Carlie's death.
At best this argument is speculative. Dr. Vega clarified that there is no way to date the I.V. injection sites, and that he cannot render an opinion concerning whether the defendant used drugs before or at the time Carlie was killed.
Further, the court finds the defendant could have sustained these injuries from drug use after he killed Carlie or before the time of his arrest. While the defendant may have been using drugs at or around the time of these crimes, his calculated and premeditated actions at the crime scene clearly refute the existence of this mitigating circumstance.
The defendant knew his actions were wrong. Otherwise, he would not have taken the drastic steps he did to cover up his involvement in these crimes. The cover-up required quick planning and execution to complete.
The defendant had the ability to appreciate the criminality of his actions, and he took the logical steps to hide his involvement for others. Further, the record evidence fails to support any finding that he lacked the capacity to conform his conduct to the law, if he so desired.
The court finds that the defendant did not utilize additional expert testimony in an attempt to establish this mitigating circumstance, and, in fact, waived the right to present the testimony of the additional mental health experts retained on his behalf.
Upon consideration, the court determines that there is no evidence that reasonably establishes the existence of this statutory mitigating circumstance.
Next, we turn to the nonstatutory mitigating circumstances. The defendant averts that 13 nonstatutory mitigating circumstances have been established.
One, the defendant has a long and well-documented history of mental illness: The record is replete with documentation supporting the defendant's various admissions to hospitals and treatment centers from 1992 to 2003. These records also set forth various diagnoses during this period, such as bipolar affective disorder, major depressive disorder, and personality disorder.
Dr. McQueen testified that, through her review of the defendant's medical records, she became aware that the defendant had been diagnosed, was suffering from depression and bipolar disorder. Dr. Anit For, a family physician, began treating the defendant in January 2003, and diagnosed him with depression.
Absent from the record, however, is expert mental health testimony to explain these mental illnesses and their impact on the defendant in his commission of these crimes, and whether each mental illness is truly mitigating under the circumstances unique to this case.
This court finds, however, that this mitigating circumstance has been established, and it is assigned moderate weight.
Two, the defendant has a long and well-documented history of drug abuse: The defendant has a history of drug abuse, with documentation of that abuse extending back to 1992. In 1993, he suffered an overdose which left him in a coma for a period of time. Since that time, he has committed various crimes to obtain drugs and has been incarcerated several times. He has continued to use a variety of drugs, including heroin, cocaine, OxyContin and Dilaudid.
After evaluating the defendant and reviewing his medical records, Dr. McQueen testified that he meets the criteria for cocaine dependence, currently in remission, secondary to him being in a controlled environment.
Absent from the record, however, is expert mental health testimony to explain how the defendant's substance abuse specifically impacted the defendant in the commission of the crimes in this case, and whether it is truly mitigating under the circumstances unique to this case. The court finds that this mitigating circumstance has been established, and it is assigned moderate weight.
The defendant suffered longstanding severe pain from back injuries that contributed to his addiction: No one dispute the defendant has suffered back injuries, which have caused him to experience pain. What is in dispute is the impact, if any, of the back injuries had in contributing to his addiction.
By the defendant's own admission, his struggle with substance abuse and addiction began long before his back injuries occurred. The record is replete with contradicting versions on what caused the defendant's back injuries and when they actually occurred.
Evidence, including self-reporting injuries by the defendant, support findings that two major back surgeries conducted in 2001 were successful. Despite the success of these surgeries and the alleviation of his pain, the defendant still requested additional drugs.
One pain-management physician described the defendant's conduct in this manner: "The patient has, time after time, promised he will change his ways and his lifestyle, yet, he has not done that so far. The patient is returning to my clinic, asking for chronic pain management. The patient can talk about all he wants to do. And, as long as he is not following my recommendations, there will not be any successful outcome."
Following the defendant's release from prison in early 2003, he was able to continue his work as a mechanic, when he chose to do so. No credible evidence was presented to support a finding that the defendant's daily life or ability to function was severely impacted by his back pain.
Further, no credible evidence was presented to demonstrate that his back injuries continued to influence or contribute to his drug addiction. The court heard testimony from individuals who observed that the defendant appeared to be experiencing back discomfort, although they agreed he was able to work, play in the yard with his children, and help his neighbors in a variety of chores, such as building a fence.
Further, the evidence presented demonstrates that he successfully abducted Carlie and committed the various crimes in this case. To commit these crimes, he needed strength and agility to subdue and restrain her. To conceal his crimes, the defendant took the extraordinary measure of dragging Carlie's body into the wooded area where she was later discovered.
These are not the actions of a man suffering from longstanding severe back pain. While the court finds that the defense has established this mitigating circumstance, the court assigns it little weight.
The defendant repeatedly sought help for his problems: The defense asserts that the defendant repeatedly sought help for his problems. Upon consideration of conflicting evidence presented in this case, the court determines that those conflicts and contradictions must be addressed before determining whether the defendant has established this mitigating circumstance.
A review of the medical records reveals that, throughout the years, the defendant has appeared at numerous hospitals and treatment facilities, requesting assistance. The more difficult issue for this court to determine is whether his requests were legitimately motivated by a desire to seek help for his problems. In other words, what was the real source of the defendant's motivation in seeking help?
Was it to obtain help for his drug abuse problems? Was it to avoid incarceration? Was it to rally his family around him and keep his wife from leaving him? We may never know the defendant's true motivation.
What is clear from the evidence is that the defendant never really followed through by making adjustments and changes necessary for long-term recovery. Dr. McQueen suggests that some -- that, for some individuals, drug dependency is like a tsunami that knocks them down and renders them powerless to stand up against their compulsion.
While it is undisputed that the defendant has a long history of drug abuse, treatment and relapse, the evidence reflects that, oftentimes, when the dependent -- defendant -- appeared for treatment, he had another agenda in mind, his own personal gratification.
As an example, in the months immediately prior to his November 2001 sentencing date, the defendant was Baker Acted not once, but twice. The timing of these admissions supports this court's finding that the defendant attempted to use his mental health and drug abuse problems to achieve the desired outcome of avoiding prison and rallying his family around him.
Therefore, while the defendant may have sought limited help for his drug problems, once he succeeded in obtaining his short-term goal of avoiding jail or having his wife take him back, the evidence clearly supports a finding that he always returned to the true object of his affection, his drugs.
While the court finds that this mitigating circumstance has been established, the court assigns it little weight.
The defendant was repeatedly denied treatment or received inadequate treatment: The defendant argues that he was repeatedly denied treatment for his substance abuse addiction or received inadequate treatment. In support of this argument, the defense relies upon medical records and the testimony of Dr. McQueen.
The court finds it significant, however, that Dr. McQueen testified that she neither received complete records of the defendant's treatment history, nor did she ever interview those individuals closest to the defendant, such as his family or friends.
In forming her opinion, Dr. McQueen primarily relied upon the select records provided by the defendant's attorney and on the self- reporting by the defendant. The court also finds it important that the evidence admitted at trial demonstrated that, after 1992, the defendant had served no fewer than 91 days in a treatment setting or in a hospital setting, receiving treatment.
While the court finds this mitigating circumstance has been established, the court assigns it little weight.
Six, nonstatutory mitigator, the defendant has many positive qualities: The defendant has demonstrated skills as a carpenter, plumber and mechanic. Individuals testified at the proceeding that the defendant possesses skills as a carpenter, plumber and mechanic. In particular, one of the defendant's friends and former business partners, Ed Dinyes, testified about the defendant's skills as an above-average mechanic and his customer-service skills.
The defendant also helped his family members, such as Jeanne Dwyer and Theresa Dillon. Individuals testified that, throughout his life, the defendant used his various mechanical and repair skills to perform kind deeds for others. A former girlfriend, Jessica Kirchner, testified about one of his kind deeds.
She recalled how the defendant performed roof and chimney repairs to her mother's cabin in the country, and how he assisted others with various jobs like raking leaves and shoveling snow. Despite being incarcerated, the defendant communicates with family members through letters and telephone calls.
The family members who testified expressed a desire to continue a relationship with the defendant, once these proceedings are concluded.
Although he has been incarcerated, the defendant communicates with family members through letters and telephone calls. In a letter written from jail, the defendant encouraged a young relative to stop smoking.
The defendant has artistic skills. The court heard testimony and received evidence in support of the mitigating circumstance that the defendant has artistic skills.
The court heard testimony and received evidence in support of the mitigating circumstance that the defendant cares about animals. As set forth above, the defendant called many of the -- the defense called many of the defendant's extended family members and other individuals to testify concerning the defendant's positive qualities.
The court notes, however, that family members closest to the defendant, such as his mother, did not testify. Many of the individuals who testified spoke of events which occurred years ago. And some of these individuals may not have seen or had daily contact with the defendant for quite some time.
While considering the testimony of these individuals, the court has taken into account the remoteness in time of certain events and whether these individuals had personal knowledge concerning the defendant's current attributes, habits, and character traits. The court finds that this mitigating circumstance has been established and gives it moderate weight.
Seven, the defendant provided information that led to the resolution of this case: While the defendant indirectly provided information that led to the resolution of this case, evidence presented leads this court to believe that he did so only after learning about the reward.
When John Smith and his mother met privately with the defendant on the morning of February 5, 2004, the defendant gave them details of the crime and where Carlie's body could be found. According to testimony presented at trial, the defendant wanted his brother, John Smith, to find Carlie's body, and collect the reward money, so that the defendant's children could receive the reward money.
In other words, the defendant only considered helping out when he learned it was possible to profit monetarily from his crimes. While this mitigating circumstance has been established, it is given very little weight. The defendant's family assisted law enforcement with the knowledge and cooperation of the defendant: Evidence presented during these proceedings demonstrates that the defendant's brother, John Smith, voluntarily contacted law enforcement to provide information relevant to this case.
He also assisted law enforcement by leading them to the crime scene while on the telephone with his brother and receiving step-by- step directions. While in the parking lot, it became evident to law enforcement that John Smith had learned additional information during his private meeting with the defendant earlier that day, and that this information had not been furnished or shared with law enforcement.
During subsequent questioning by law enforcement later that evening, it was established that, when John Smith and his mother met privately with the defendant earlier that morning, they learned details of the crime and where Carlie's body could be found.
Prior to contacting any law enforcement agent that day, John Smith and his mother went to the church property and conducted an unsuccessful search for Carlie's body. When John Smith contacted the FBI agent later that evening, he did so under the mistaken belief that his telephone had been monitored by law enforcement and that officials already knew of his brother's involvement in Carlie's abduction and murder.
Throughout these proceedings, it has been abundantly clear to this court that John Smith has been emotionally torn, having to testify against his brother. The defendant, however, does not appear to share his brother's conflicting emotions.
To the contrary, in a letter written by the defendant to another inmate and postmarked shortly after beginning of this trial, the defendant referred to John Smith's cooperation with law enforcement in the following manner: "Do you know that he made a total of three statements to the FBI? One was 76 pages long. That's right. No mistake, 76 F-ing pages. You should hear the bull-spit he said. If he ever comes to prison to visit, I will break his jaw."
Although the court acknowledges that the defendant's family has cooperated at times during the course of the investigation and prosecution of this case, the court also recognizes that, at times, the family has obstructed the efforts of law enforcement.
The court finds that this mitigating circumstance has been established and is accorded slight weight.
Number nine, the defendant has demonstrated spiritual growth: The defendant presented evidence that his family raised him in the Roman Catholic faith. While incarcerated on these charges, the defendant confessed to a Roman Catholic priest and then began weekly meetings with an individual, Robert Marino, who is in training to be a Catholic priest.
Another individual, Barbara Messenger, who is an evangelist, sent a religious track to the defendant. And he responded by mailing his spiritual birth certificate to her. The court finds that this mitigating circumstance has been established, and it has been accorded moderate weight.
Defendant has maintained gainful employment: A defendant's ability to maintain gainful employment is a valid mitigating factor. The evidence presented in this case reveals that the defendant has various job skills and that he has worked several jobs throughout the years. The evidence presented also reveals that his drug abuse and incarceration interfered with his ability to maintain steady employment.
In 2003, Ed Dinyes provided the defendant with the opportunity of making a fresh start after the defendant's release from prison earlier that year. The two formed a business partnership, with the understanding that Mr. Dinyes would sell cars and the defendant would operate a garage on the same site and perform necessary vehicle repairs.
When forming the partnership with the defendant, Mr. Dinyes testified that the defendant assured him that he had been rehabilitated. Unbeknownst to Mr. Dinyes, however, with days of his release from prison in early 2003, the defendant was arrested again on new drug charges and placed on probation.
By August 2003, he defendant was Baker Acted, due to his substance abuse. In his own words, Mr. Dinyes described how the defendant duped him into believing that drugs were behind him. Their business relationship was ruined. The court finds that this mitigating circumstance has been established and it is given slight weight.
The defendant was a kind and loving father to his three young daughters: The defendant has three young daughters. Their ages range from 9 years of age to 5 years of age. Throughout the sentencing proceedings, the defense has called witnesses to testify concerning the good parenting abilities of the defendant and of the close relationship the defendant shared with his children during the brief periods of time he shared with them. The court finds that this mitigating circumstance has been established and it is given moderate weight.
The defendant is remorseful: At the Spencer hearing, the defendant read a prepared statement to this court, in which he expressed remorse for the crimes he had committed two years earlier. The court, however, would be remiss in failing to acknowledge record evidence which clearly contradicts the statement read by the defendant.
This evidence includes, but is not limited to, the defendant's attempts to conceal his crimes, the coded letter to John Smith in April 2005, and the plethora of cold and thoughtless statements made by the defendant which were recorded while he was incarcerated.
Only the defendant knows whether he is truly remorseful for his actions. This court can only hope that he is. The court finds that this mitigating circumstance has been established, and it is given little weight.
The defendant is amenable to rehabilitation and a productive life in prison: The ability to be rehabilitated can be a valid mitigating factor. The court has considered the testimony presented at the sentencing proceedings any contribution the defendant made -- could make, if sentenced to life in prison, along with his potential for rehabilitation.
The state introduced a letter written by the defendant to Manatee County Jail inmate Blaine Ross, postmarked November 8, 2005, which casts serious doubt concerning the defendant's ability to be rehabilitated and to live a productive life in prison. The state further introduced evidence of disciplinary problems the defendant experienced while incarcerated in jail awaiting trial in this case.
The defendant received disciplinary reports for kicking a door, following a routine search, for using profanity and abusive language against an officer, and for possessing contraband.
Although the court determines that this mitigating circumstance has been established, it is given little weight.
Mr. Smith, I would ask that you and your attorneys stay -- stand for sentencing.
This court has now discussed all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The aggravating circumstances in this case far outweigh the mitigating circumstances. Each one of the aggravating factors in this case, standing alone, would be sufficient to outweigh the mitigation submitted in this case.
This court agrees with the jury that, in weighing the aggravating circumstances against the mitigating circumstances, the scales of life and death tilt unquestionably toward the side of death.
Joseph Smith, based upon your actions, you have forfeited your right to live freely among us in society, and, pursuant to the laws of Florida, have forfeited your right to live.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered and adjudged that, for the murder of Carlie Jane Brucia, you are hereby sentenced to death. It is further ordered that the defendant be transported to the Department of Corrections to be held on death row, until this sentence can be executed, as provided by law.
Mr. Smith, you are notified that this sentence is subject to automatic review by the Supreme Court.
May God have mercy on your soul.
These proceedings are concluded.
PHILLIPS: There you have the final say from the judge, with regard to the fate there of Joseph Smith, sentenced to death for murdering Carlie Brucia. For the past hour-and-a-half or so, we have been listening to just this dramatic chain of events of -- of how this man took the life of this little girl.
John Zarrella has been on the story for more than a year. He's outside the courtroom.
John, we were hearing early on that, for those earlier counts of -- of sexual assault and -- and kidnapping, it was going to be life in prison. And I think everybody was thinking, OK, what happened to the death penalty? And then there it was, the final charge there, the final conviction of murder, the judge said it, sentenced to death.
ZARRELLA: Right, Kyra.
And, again, that is not a surprise to legal -- legal experts that we have been talking with before this, because the -- the jury had -- that's the stepfather, Carlie Brucia's stepfather, there that we are seeing in court right now.
The -- the jury had recommended, 10-2, death penalty. And, in Florida, legal experts will tell you that the judges have to weigh that very, very heavily. And it is very rare that they will change what the jury recommends in a death penalty case, and when the jury recommends death.
And, as the judge pointed out, the preponderance of the aggravating circumstances against Joseph Smith far outweighed any of the mitigating circumstances for Joseph Smith.
So, it was quite clear, as the judge was reading through those -- the preponderance of the aggravating circumstances -- cold, calculated, premeditated were the words he used, the strangulation, and how it probably took two to four minutes -- that it was very unlikely that Judge Owens, Judge Andrew Owens, was going to allow Joseph Smith to spend the rest of his life in prison. And, in fact, he did not.
Joseph Smith now faces death by lethal injection here in Florida -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: All right, John Zarrella, outside the courtroom there, after some incredible -- gosh, I don't even know if incredible is the right word, but pretty disgusting detail about what this man did to 11-year-old Carlie Brucia in 2004.
If you are just tuning in, just a quick wrap, as you are looking at live pictures inside the courtroom there, the stepfather of this young girl, Carlie Brucia.
We were trying -- we were listening to find out if it was going to be life or death in the murder of this child. And now it has come across that Joseph Smith will spend -- will be sentenced to death, after abducting, raping and killing 11-year-old Carlie Brucia in Florida in 2004. We will never forget that security camera footage outside that car wash that captured everything on tape. You will remember this right here, just calmly walking up to her, grabbing her arm, leading her out from that picture. It happened there in Sarasota, Florida, as she was walking home from a friend's house.
Her body, as you remember, was found a few days later -- but now Joseph Smith sentenced to die.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
