Supreme Court Overturns Death Penalty Given to Killer of 2 Girls

The state Supreme Court on Monday unanimously overturned the death sentence imposed on the killer of two girls, ruling the defense should have been allowed to present more evidence that the murders may have resulted from psychological damage he suffered from seven years in Vietnam.

The justices upheld the conviction of Phillip Louis Lucero, a 42-year-old Army veteran and winner of the Purple Heart, in the 1980 killings of Chris Hubbard, 7, and Teddy Engliman, 10, whose bodies were found stuffed in a trash bin after they disappeared on the way to a neighborhood park in Yucaipa.

But the court reversed Lucero’s death sentence, finding that the jury should have been permitted to hear additional testimony that Lucero suffered from “post-traumatic stress” and should be sent to prison for life instead of the gas chamber.

Mitigation Factor

“(Lucero) was entitled to have the jury consider his psychological disorder as a factor in mitigation, whether or not the mental condition caused him to commit the crimes,” Justice Allen E. Broussard wrote for the court.

In an impassioned partial dissent, Justice Stanley Mosk argued that the court should have gone further and reduced Lucero’s conviction to simple first-degree murder--an unusual action that would bar a new penalty trial and enable Lucero to seek parole after serving seven years in a 25-years-to-life sentence.

“I concede as a general proposition that the law cannot countenance domestic violence by Vietnam veterans, even though many unfortunately still suffer from their agonizing experiences,” Mosk said.

Taught to Kill

“I do believe, however, that this defendant deserves compassion from a society that in the first instance taught him to kill.”

The decision marked only the fifth time in 16 capital cases that the court, under Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, has overturned a death sentence.

It also represented the court’s first review in a capital case of evidence on the Vietnam stress syndrome, a still-debated theory that veterans, in committing crimes, may be re-experiencing traumatic incidents in “flashbacks” to wartime combat. Michael Satris, a Bolinas attorney representing Lucero, said he was disappointed that the conviction was allowed to stand but welcomed the ruling overturning the death sentence.

“This is just not the kind of case that deserved the death penalty,” Satris said. “This one break from reality unfortunately resulted in the deaths of the two little girls, but it was the only bad thing he did in his entire life.”

The lawyer expressed the hope that in further proceedings, a lower court would “follow the lead of Justice Mosk” and reduce Lucero’s conviction to simple first-degree murder, enabling him eventually to seek parole.

State Deputy Atty. Gen. Jay M. Bloom said he was “pleased with the outcome of the guilt phase but somewhat disappointed with the penalty phase result.”

“I can understand the court’s concern with the evidentiary issue in this case,” Bloom said. “We had hoped that any procedural errors the court found would be ruled harmless.”

Lucero was charged with the murders of the two girls after their bodies were found behind a local supermarket, hours after they disappeared on their way to a park across the street from his residence.

Emotional Problems

After a San Bernardino Superior Court jury found Lucero guilty, his defense attorneys, asking the jury to spare his life, presented expert testimony from Dr. Edward Conolley saying that Lucero had suffered severe emotional problems as a child and showed clear symptoms of post-traumatic stress syndrome from his service in Vietnam.

The psychiatrist said that a cackling of a goose outside Lucero’s home as the girls went by might have triggered a flashback to his experiences in Vietnam, where a commotion among animals often signaled the approach of the enemy. The whir of helicopters and sound of bullhorns as police searched for the girls might have exacerbated the situation, he said.

Conolley said in his opinion, Lucero was “quite psychologically impaired” on the day of the murders and was unable to think clearly or perceive reality.

But Superior Court Judge Joseph B. Campbell refused to allow Conolley to testify before the jury that he believed Lucero could adjust to prison life and would not present a danger in the future.

Later, seeking to strengthen Conolley’s testimony, the defense sought to call as an expert witness Thomas Wulbrecht, a Vietnam veteran, counselor and expert on the syndrome, to testify that he too believed Lucero suffered from the disorder and that it was “probable” it caused him to murder the girls.

But Campbell disallowed the testimony, even as a factor in mitigation, on grounds that it would represent “sheer speculation” about the crimes.

Both Views

The justices held that the jury should have been allowed to hear both Conolley’s views on Lucero’s future dangerousness and Wulbrecht’s testimony on post-traumatic stress syndrome.

The U.S. Supreme Court, Broussard wrote, has held that a jury must be allowed to consider “any aspect of a defendant’s character” that might serve as a basis for a sentence other than death.

“Evidence that a defendant’s character is such that he would be unlikely to commit future crimes, and would adjust to prison life, clearly comes within this rule,” Broussard said.

Similarly, the judge should have permitted testimony from Wulbrecht describing Lucero’s mental condition.

Because the validity of the syndrome is subject to debate, Lucero could have benefited from testimony by a second mental health expert, who diagnosed him as suffering from the disorder, Broussard said.

Broussard’s opinion was joined by Lucas and Justices Edward A. Panelli, John A. Arguelles, David N. Eagleson and Marcus M. Kaufman.