Supreme Court Strikes Down Conviction in Holdup Killing

The California Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the capital conviction of a Pasadena man who it said had been improperly tried at the same time for two unrelated murders.

The 4-3 decision marked the 56th time in 59 capital cases that the court majority has overturned a conviction or sentence since the death penalty was restored in this state in 1977.

It was also the first time that Justice Edward A. Panelli, the newest member of the court, participated in a case involving the death penalty. Panelli joined with dissenters in concluding that the conviction in this instance should have been upheld.

The court, however, did not reach the question of whether a death sentence would have been valid had the conviction been affirmed.

Shooting Death

The justices ordered a retrial for Ronald Jerome Smallwood, who was tried in the March, 1979, killing of George House, a pensioner, and the shooting death seven months later of John Dunbar, a lawyer, both in what prosecutors said were robbery attempts in Pasadena.

A Los Angeles Superior Court jury convicted Smallwood in the murder of House but failed to agree on a verdict in the killing of Dunbar. Smallwood waived his right to a jury trial in the penalty phase of the case and a trial judge sentenced him to death.

The court majority, in an opinion by Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird, said the defendant should have been tried separately on the two murder charges to ensure that the jury, in considering a verdict in one murder, would not be unduly influenced by evidence in the other.

The trial court should have exercised the discretion the law provides to separate the two murder charges when they are not related and the danger arises that the jury will use stronger evidence in one case to buttress weaker evidence in the other, the justices said.

Extra Care

Trial judges should take extra care to order separate trials in capital cases, Bird wrote.

“Even if such an ill-considered ruling (not to hold separate trials) were justifiable in a less serious case, it was impermissible where questions of life and death were at stake,” the chief justice said.

The court said further that the fact that Smallwood was convicted of only one murder did not necessarily mean that the jury had been able to distinguish between the two charges.

“It could be equally persuasively argued that the verdict represented a compromise resulting from the spillover effect of considering the two unrelated charges,” Bird said.

Bird was joined by Justices Allen E. Broussard, Cruz Reynoso and Joseph R. Grodin.

In dissent, Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, joined by Panelli and Justice Stanley Mosk, said there was “overwhelming” evidence to support not only Smallwood’s conviction in the House murder but his guilt in the Dunbar killing as well.

Lucas noted that one witness had testified he had seen both murders. That factor would provide good reason to try the murders together, giving the jury a chance to evaluate the testimony in both crimes, he said.

Special Scrutiny

The dissenters argued also that the law gives judges discretion to try certain charges together, whether they involve the death penalty or not, and there was no reason to apply special scrutiny to capital crimes.

“There is no provision calling for a higher or different standard merely because the defendant committed an offense so aggravated that it merited society’s greatest penalty,” Lucas wrote.

Deputy Atty. Gen. Andrew D. Amerson expressed dismay with the majority’s ruling and said the state will consider seeking a rehearing before the justices.

“We were surprised and quite disappointed,” Amerson said. “The prosecution and the defense always take special care in death penalty cases to make sure there is a fair trial.

“The bottom line in this case is that the defendant was convicted fairly. We feel the court should have affirmed that conviction.”

Attorney ‘Pleased’

An attorney representing Smallwood, Stephen B. Bedrick of Oakland, said he was “pleased” by the ruling.