Incompetent Defense Ruled in Trabuco Case

In an unusual reversal of a jury verdict, a state appellate court overturned the attempted-murder conviction of a Trabuco Canyon man Thursday because it found the man’s court-appointed defense attorney was incompetent.

The ruling means that George A. McCutcheon, 39, could get a new trial or, if county prosecutors drop the case, be set free after 2 years behind bars.

“I’m just so happy (the conviction) was reversed,” McCutcheon said in a telephone interview from a state prison in Susanville after he was told by a reporter of the court’s decision. “The last 2 years, I’ve just been hoping that the system would work, and it appears now that it has.”

McCutcheon, a former electrician in Trabuco Canyon, was convicted by an Orange County Superior Court jury of attempted murder a year ago after he shot a former friend in a November, 1986, dispute over a stolen television set. McCutcheon said he had fired in self-defense.

With a new lawyer to represent him, McCutcheon appealed his conviction, saying his defense attorney failed to present his side of the story properly at the trial.

The 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana agreed. The justices faulted defense attorney James S. Odriozola of Santa Ana for failing to explore the defendant’s drunken state at the time of the shooting as one defense; for failing to ask the jury for a lesser verdict of assault, and for other serious tactical errors.

In overturning the conviction, the court found that “had McCutcheon been represented by competent, well-prepared counsel, the probability is high he would have achieved a dramatically better result.”

Odriozola, who refused to comment on the case, was most recently in the public eye as the defense attorney for one of three men, described by prosecutors as “skinheads,” who were accused of beating a gay man in Laguna Beach. The defendants were convicted of assault but acquitted on the more serious charge of attempted murder.

The appellate court said Thursday that errors in McCutcheon’s case by Odriozola, who maintains a private practice, could have been largely to blame for the verdict.

Criminal defendants routinely appeal their convictions on claims of an attorney’s incompetence at their trial, but such motions are seldom granted.

“It’s rare,” said Richard L. Schwartzberg, the Santa Ana attorney who represented McCutcheon in his appeal. “It’s not as (unusual) as getting hit by lightning . . . but it’s close.”

The appellate justices underscored their displeasure with Odriozola by pointing out they usually allow lawyers accused of incompetence to explain themselves at a hearing.

Evidence Precluded Hearing

But in this case, the appellate court said, the evidence of McCutcheon’s ill-prepared defense was strong enough to make such a hearing unnecessary.

“If counsel’s conduct of the case could not under any hypothesis be an educated, tactical course, it seems a foolish waste of the court’s resources . . . (to order such a hearing and) to prolong the agony of all concerned,” Justice Edward J. Wallin wrote in an opinion for the court.

The court found that “McCutcheon got the worst of both worlds” at his trial:

The prosecution used McCutcheon’s drinking habits to characterize him as “a combative, irresponsible, boozing loudmouth,” the court said, but Odriozola never raised with the jury--or probed on his own--the alcohol issue as a possible explanation for the crime.

Troubled by Tactics

The court was also troubled by other tactical errors by Odriozola and said, “The strongest defense arguments were not made, and the weakest was urged.”

Schwartzberg said the Trabuco Canyon man should, at worst, have been found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and, at best, acquitted of all charges.

McCutcheon himself contended: “I never meant to kill anyone. I just wanted to protect myself. But the jury never heard any of that.”