Court Overturns Death Penalty for Double Murderer

A widely divided state Supreme Court on Thursday overturned the death sentence but upheld the double-murder conviction of a North Hollywood man who was denied an attorney to advise him as he represented himself at trial.

The unusual ruling produced four separate opinions from the seven justices--and marked the first time the newly aligned court was not unanimous in reversing a death sentence. And only once before had the five justices appointed to the court by Gov. George Deukmejian disagreed in a capital decision.

By a vote of 4 to 3, the court reversed the death sentence of Kenneth Crandell, 54, for the murders of a 69-year-old man and his 14-year-old son during an argument in July, 1980.

The justices concluded that instructions by the trial judge and remarks by the prosecutor may have misled jurors in deciding whether Crandell should be sent to the gas chamber.

But in a separate 4-3 vote, the court rejected Crandell’s claim that his conviction should be overturned because he was improperly denied a court-appointed lawyer to advise him after he was allowed to defend himself at trial.

Under past rulings, criminal defendants are permitted to represent themselves if they are found mentally competent and after they are warned of the dangers of self-representation.

The court held Thursday that while under a 1984 ruling judges must carefully consider a defendant’s request for advisory counsel, such requests can still be denied when the defendant has the skill to represent himself. And in this case, the justices said, Crandell had not shown that denial of advisory counsel was improper or that it affected the verdict.

“Defendant proved to be an aggressive, thorough, and skillful advocate in court . . . and (made) motions, had subpoenaed witnesses and had engaged in skillful cross-examination of witnesses,” Justice Marcus M. Kaufman wrote in the court’s lead opinion. The trial judge himself, Kaufman noted, said Crandell’s legal performance “absolutely astounded me” and had given the prosecutor “a run for his money.”

In dissent, Justice Allen E. Broussard, joined by Justice Stanley Mosk, contended that denying advisory counsel for Crandell--who has an 11th-grade education and no formal legal training--undermined his right to a fair trial and required reversal of both his conviction and his sentence.

“It goes without saying that an unadvised lay person--even one who is intelligent, literate and articulate--cannot be expected to present a competent defense,” Broussard wrote.

State Deputy Atty. Gen. William R. Weisman said that a rehearing may be sought from the justices on their reversal of Crandell’s sentence. But in upholding the conviction, the decision may help state prosecutors prevail in several pending cases raising similar issues, he said.

“Some people had thought that the new court would be voting in a bloc all the time,” Weisman remarked. “But this ruling shows the justices are pretty independent.”

Welcome Reversal

State Deputy Public Defender Michael Pescetta, who analyzes capital cases for his office, welcomed the reversal of Crandell’s sentence but said the ruling “certainly does weaken” the 1984 decision requiring judges to consider advisory counsel for defendants representing themselves. Pescetta acknowledged, however, that in most capital cases such an issue does not arise.

Crandell was accused of the murders of Ernest Pruett and his son, Edward Pruett, in a dispute that apparently began as the two older men were drinking vodka in the Pruett home where Crandell was living. Crandell also was charged with assault with intent to rape and kidnaping Ernest Pruett’s 15-year-old daughter.

When the case came to court, Crandell contended that he had been “abandoned” by the county public defender assigned to the case and asked to be allowed to represent himself, waiving his right to counsel. The defender denied doing so, but Crandell was permitted to defend himself.

Asked for Lawyer

Later, he asked that a private lawyer be appointed to represent him and, when that was denied, he then sought a private attorney as a legal adviser. In all, the request for a private counsel to represent him or advisory counsel to assist him was denied by three different judges--and Crandell ended up representing himself throughout the trial.

Crandell was convicted in 1981 by a jury in a monthlong trial before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Armand Arabian and later sentenced to death.

The key votes in Thursday’s ruling were provided by Kaufman, who joined Broussard, Mosk and Justice John A. Arguelles to overturn the sentence. Kaufman was aligned with Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas and Justices Edward A. Panelli and David N. Eagleson in a separate vote to uphold the conviction.

Instruction Unclear

The judge’s instructions did not make clear that jurors had considerable discretion in weighing favorable and unfavorable factors about Crandell that could have resulted in a sentence of life without parole instead of death, Kaufman wrote.

While in several cases the court has ruled that such an error was harmless, it was compounded in Crandell’s case by the prosecutor’s remarks incorrectly implying that there were no mitigating circumstances favoring mercy for Crandell, Kaufman said. The fact that there was no evidence of prior criminal activity by Crandell was a “significant” mitigating factor and should have been presented to the jury, the justice concluded.

“In view of the fact that the prosecution’s case for imposition of the death penalty was not overwhelming, it must be concluded that the judgment (of death) must be reversed,” Kaufman wrote.

Entitled to Retrial

Under the ruling, Crandell is entitled to a penalty retrial after which he could be sentenced to death or to life in prison without parole.

Lucas, joined by Panelli and Eagleson, contended in dissent that any such procedural errors were harmless--and pointed out that the prosecutor had not even urged the jury to return a verdict of death.

Arguelles, in another separate opinion, agreed with Broussard and Mosk that the failure to provide Crandell with a legal adviser required reversal of the conviction and sentence. Lucas, Panelli, Arguelles, Eagleson and Kaufman all were appointed to the court by Deukmejian. Mosk was named by Gov. Edmund G. Brown and Broussard by Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr.

Fewer Reversals

The justices now have reversed the death penalty 14 times in 52 capital decisions issued since Lucas became chief justice in 1987. Under former Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird, the court reversed 64 death sentences in 68 cases.

In another action Thursday, the justices refused to consider reinstating a $3-million award against Los Angeles County won by a Malibu couple whose home was destroyed in the 1983 Big Rock Mesa landslide. The award was overturned in June by a state Court of Appeal in Los Angeles, which ruled that the county could not be sued merely for approving plans for a drainage system that allegedly contributed to the massive slide in the subdivision.

Only Mosk voted to hear an appeal of the June ruling by lawyers for Margaret and August Hansch. Votes from four of the seven justices are required to grant review. However, the high court said in a brief order that the appeal court opinion could not be used as a precedent in other cases.

Effect of Action Unclear

Attorneys disagreed over the effect of the justices’ action on pending suits by 235 other homeowners involving the slide.

An attorney for the Hansches, Richard D. Norton, said he may file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court but that otherwise, the couple was “out of luck” in their suit against the county.

Norton said, however, that other homeowners would still be free to pursue claims against the county because the justices’ had effectively eliminated the appeal court’s “wild diversion” from the law as it pertained to other parties.

William W. Vaughn, an attorney for the county, told the Associated Press that because the Hansch case had been regarded as a “test” for other homeowner suits, the appellate ruling still may have some effect on pending cases.

Both sides said the question will be further reviewed in a hearing later this month before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maurice R. Hogan.