High Court Upholds Death Penalty for Ex-Buddhist Monk in 2 Slayings

The state Supreme Court on Monday unanimously upheld the death sentence of a one-time Buddhist monk convicted in the 1981 robbery-murders of a Garden Grove market manager and her clerk.

The justices rejected the appeal of Jaturun Siripongs, now 36, a native of Thailand, who had been portrayed by his defense lawyer as a nonviolent man who prayed each morning before going to work at an Irvine optical firm.

Siripongs, who came to the United States in 1980, was found guilty and sentenced to death for the strangulation murder of Packovan (Pat) Wattanaporn of Huntington Beach, who ran the store where the defendant once worked, and the fatal stabbing of Quach Nguyen of Westminster.

According to evidence presented at his trial, Siripongs stole an estimated $25,000 in jewelry and other items in a robbery at the market, hiding some of the items and trying to sell others. He was arrested at local department store when he tried to use Wattanaporn’s credit card to buy a television set.

Impact of Killings

In an opinion by Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, the court refused to set aside the death sentence on grounds that the trial prosecutor made inflammatory and irrelevant remarks to jurors on the impact of the killings on the victims’ families.

In his closing argument, Orange County Assistant Dist. Atty. Edgar Freeman told jurors that the killings were “horrendous” and involved “not just the enormity of taking one’s life . . . but the impact that is left on those who survive--the near and dear. . . .”

“Victims have rights to be recognized and to be listened to and to be addressed by jurors. And jurors must have the courage, if the evidence warrants it, to impose a death penalty if that’s what the law is and that’s what the evidence directs,” the prosecutor said.

The justices acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court last year barred the presentation of evidence to jurors on the impact of a crime on the victim’s family. But in this case, Lucas wrote, there was no such evidence presented, and the prosecutor’s remarks were “brief and mild.”

The justices also held that it was proper for the trial judge, Orange County Superior Court Judge Robert R. Fitzgerald, to hear pleas for the death penalty from the victims’ family members, as permitted under a 1982 initiative known as the ‘victims’ bill of rights.’

Wattanaporn’s husband, the father of their four children, and her 15-year-old son made tearful statements to Fitzgerald, urging that Siripongs pay for the crimes with his life.

Heard Pleas

However, the judge heard their pleas after refusing to reduce Siripongs’ sentence to life without parole, indicating that their statements did not change his mind, the court noted. Also, Lucas said, it was “doubtful” that the U.S. Supreme Court intended to bar victims’ family members from making statements to trial judges, “who are presumably capable of retaining objectivity” in deciding whether to impose the death penalty.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Stanley Mosk warned that even though the the error in this case was harmless, no reference at all should be made to jurors on the impact of a crime on the victims’ families. The purpose of presenting either evidence or argument was the same: “to inflame the jury,” Mosk said.

Justice Allen E. Broussard issued a brief concurring opinion, saying he supported Mosk’s views.

California Deputy Atty. Gen. Louis R. Hanoian called the ruling “an appropriate and correct one” and said that Freeman’s remarks on the impact on victims had not been intended to inflame the jury.

“This was not a situation where the prosecutor was banging on the table,” he said.

Hanoian said that, since the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling, it was “safe to assume” that prosecutors now were avoiding any comment on the victim’s impact issue before jurors to make sure that there was no violation of the high court’s mandate.

Appeal Expected

While the attorney for Siripongs was not available for comment, it is virtually assured that the ruling will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Monday’s decision marked the 20th time the court has upheld a death sentence in the 28 capital cases it has ruled on since three new justices appointed by Gov. George Deukmejian joined the court in March, 1987.