Recast Court Voids Verdict in 1st Capital Case

The new state Supreme Court, in its first ruling in a capital case, unanimously overturned a death sentence Monday because of what it called a “gross error” made in the trial by a Los Angeles judge.

In a sharply worded opinion, the justices said Superior Court Judge Everett E. Ricks Jr. had committed an “utterly incomprehensible act” by recalling the original jurors five months after they were discharged and requiring them to decide the sanity of a defendant they already had convicted and sentenced to death.

Ricks had taken the unusual, if not unprecedented, step after a different jury impaneled to decide the sanity issue reported it was deadlocked and was dismissed.

The justices upheld a verdict of guilty brought against Edgar Morris Hendricks, a 33-year-old self-described homosexual prostitute, in the murders of two men he met on Hollywood Boulevard in 1980.

But the court said that, because of the judge’s error, Hendricks was entitled to a new hearing on his claim of insanity. And, if he is found to have been sane at the time the crimes were committed, a retrial will follow to decide whether he should be sentenced to death.

Meanwhile, another case involving Hendricks, in which he was convicted and sentenced to death for two murders in San Francisco, is still pending on appeal before the justices.

The court under former Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird had overturned all but four of the 68 death sentences it had reviewed since capital punishment was restored in California in 1977. The court’s record on the issue led to the bitter campaign that resulted in the defeat of Bird and two other justices in November’s election.

Now the court is led by Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas and contains a majority of appointees of Bird’s leading critic, Gov. George Deukmejian. Its philosophical realignment is widely expected to result in more death sentences being upheld and, perhaps, some key capital rulings by the Bird court being reversed.

But Monday’s holding gave little indication on how the new court intends to rule on more than 170 other capital cases now before the justices. The decision focused on the particular circumstances of the case, leaving undecided major issues that could have far-reaching impact.

“This was a very unique case,” said Deputy Atty. Gen. Robert R. Anderson, who represented the state. “We’re always disappointed when we don’t win. But under the circumstances I can’t say we were surprised to lose on this issue.”

Similarly, William M. Goodman, a San Francisco attorney who represented Hendricks, called the case “somewhat unusual,” and added, “it seemed to us the court had very little alternative but to reverse--and we’re pleased to see that it did.”

Hendricks was charged with the murders and robbery of Harry Carter, 79, and James Burchell, 29, after acts of prostitution with the two men in separate incidents. When he came to trial in 1983, he pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity.

Issue Overlooked

The jury convicted Hendricks, returned the death penalty and was discharged. But later, when time came for his formal sentencing, Hendricks’ lawyer and the prosecutor pointed out that the sanity issue somehow had been overlooked and that the defendant had not received the hearing on the question required by law after a verdict of guilty.

Ricks then impaneled a new jury to decide Hendricks’ sanity. But after 11 days of deliberations the panel reported it was deadlocked--with one of the jurors reportedly announcing “I can’t take it anymore” and refusing to talk to the others.

The judge, over defense protests, recalled the original jurors, reimpaneling them without allowing attorneys to ask them any questions. That jury found Hendricks sane.

In Monday’s ruling, the court, in a 23-page opinion by Justice Stanley Mosk, upheld Hendricks’ claim that the judge erred in recalling the original jury.

“Once the court loses control over the jurors, it is without jurisdiction to call them together again,” Mosk wrote.

Free to Mingle

The justices noted that after jurors are dismissed, they are free to mingle with others, and if they wish can read news accounts of the case and discuss it with friends, family or even lawyers and witnesses involved in the dispute.

The law bars such jurors from being recalled into a case after being subject to such outside influences, the court pointed out.

On another issue in the case, the justices rejected Hendricks’ contention that he could not be charged with a capital offense on the basis of his prior murder convictions in the San Francisco case, where there was no specific finding of intent to kill. Such intent is not required, the court said.

Attorneys in the case said that finding appeared to have narrow impact. The court has yet to resolve a much broader issue involving intent: whether it should overturn a ruling by the Bird court saying that in cases involving felony murders, a defendant cannot be sentenced to death unless a jury has specifically found he intended to kill his victim. Such intent is not required, the court said.