Justice Eagleson to Retire in 1991 : Supreme Court: He will be the third Deukmejian appointee to depart after brief tenure. Governor will name a successor, who must face the voters.

Justice David N. Eagleson disclosed Wednesday that he will retire next January from the state Supreme Court, marking the third time an appointee of Gov. George Deukmejian has stepped down after a relatively brief tenure on the high court.

In a letter to the governor, Eagleson said he will not seek reelection in November but instead will leave office when his current term expires at midnight Jan. 6--six days after he achieves 20 years in the state judiciary and is eligible for full retirement benefits.

“While I have enjoyed every minute of my judicial career, and the opportunity for problem-solving along the way, I think it best to move along so that I may pursue other professional interests and engage in personal pursuits, long deferred,” he said.

While his seat on the court will not become vacant until Deukmejian also leaves office, the state Constitution requires the governor to name Eagleson’s successor by Sept. 16. That nominee, in turn, would face voters in the November election.

The 65-year-old Eagleson was one of three justices named to the high court by Deukmejian in 1987 to replace former Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and two others defeated in the fall, 1986, elections. The two other 1987 Deukmejian appointees--former Justices John A. Arguelles, 62, and Marcus M. Kaufman, 60--retired in March, 1989, and this past January, respectively.

Some legal experts said Wednesday that the rapid turnover could prove disruptive and further slow the output of a court already facing a heavy backlog of 185 capital cases. Some critics say the death penalty workload has impeded the court’s ability to resolve other important legal issues.

“It’s unfortunate for the court to become such a revolving door,” said UC Berkeley law professor Stephen R. Barnett. “It’s got to hurt the court’s efficiency, morale and institutional continuity. I think it makes clearer than ever that the burden of the death penalty cases must be wearing the justices down and burning them out.”

While Eagleson has not drawn as much public attention as some of his colleagues, he is known among court observers as an efficient and hard-working jurist who looks more to the practicalities of the law than lofty theories. Colleagues credit his administrative skills with improving the court’s internal operating procedures.

His departure is not likely to alter the philosophical balance of the court, which is currently led by a 5-2 majority of moderately conservative Deukmejian appointees.

Although it was apparently not a factor in their decisions to retire, with Eagleson’s impending departure, none of the three 1987 Deukmejian appointees will have gone before the electorate. Under law, judicial appointees, if they seek to stay on the court, must go on the ballot at the next gubernatorial election.

“It’s wonderfully ironic that the three justices appointed to replace the three voted out of office in 1986 will all have retired without going before the voters,” noted Barnett.

Thus far, Deukmejian has made seven high court appointments during his two four-year terms. Four appointees--Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas and Justices Edward A. Panelli, Joyce L. Kennard and Armand Arabian--remain on the court. Justices Stanley Mosk and Allen E. Broussard, both appointed by Democratic governors, are the other members.

In naming Eagleson’s successor, Deukmejian, as he has in more recent appointments, is expected to look for an established legal figure who will serve longer on the high court. Kennard was 47 when named by the governor last year to succeed Arguelles; Arabian was 55 when selected this year to succeed Kaufman.

“I would not expect the governor to appoint anyone who did not have the same kind of experience as his past appointees,” said Jerry Wiley, vice dean of the USC Law School. “It wouldn’t surprise me if he picked someone who is fiftyish. If the new justice is experienced and hits the ground running, I would not expect there to be much of a lag in the court’s output.”

Six of the governor’s nominees--including Eagleson--had been members of the state Court of Appeal. The other, Lucas, was once Deukmejian’s law partner and then a federal district judge in Los Angeles for 13 years.

Lucas, in a statement, praised Eagleson for his dedication and ability. “His practical and professional approach to the bench have been the hallmarks of his distinguished judicial career,” the chief justice said. “He has consistently performed as an exemplary justice with the highest regard for fairness. His productivity on the court is well known and his written opinions are of the highest quality.”

Eagleson, a Navy veteran and graduate of USC, practiced law in Long Beach before he was named in late 1970 to the Los Angeles Superior Court. In 1981, he became presiding judge, winning wide attention for reducing an overwhelming backlog of court cases. Three years later, Deukmejian elevated him to the state Court of Appeal in Los Angeles.

On the high court, Eagleson became highly productive in a brief period of time. In 1989, he wrote 19 majority rulings, more than any other justice. During his three-year tenure, he wrote 19 capital decisions, upholding death sentences in 15.

In public speeches, he was a strong defender of the court and denied that justices were overwhelmed by death penalty cases. Like most of the justices, Eagleson rarely agreed to interviews. But in a recent article in the publication USC Law, he acknowledged his pragmatic “bread and butter” approach to the law.

“I do believe that time can be misspent in the pursuit of theoretical elegance,” he said. “ . . . Certain esoteric concepts that the courts sometimes put out--ideas that, in an abstract sense, are logical and cohesive--at the level of application, just don’t work.”

Eagleson was a philosophical conservative and generally followed a path of judicial restraint, choosing to interpret the law narrowly rather than expansively.

“I think he’s made a major contribution to the court at a time when it had lost some of its luster,” said Wiley of the USC Law School. “ . . . He helped restore some of the sense of high regard in which the court was held until recently, when the public got a little disaffected.”

Among other rulings, Eagleson wrote high court majority opinions that:

Limited racial challenges to jury-selection procedures, holding that defense claims of discrimination must be supported by specific evidence of systematic exclusion of minorities. Mere statistical under-representation of minorities among prospective jurors was not sufficient in itself to show bias, the court said.

Held that growers must provide workers’ compensation coverage and other protections to laborers who work for a share of a crop, rather than an hourly wage.

Made it easier for prosecutors to show that a defendant’s confession was voluntary and thus should be admitted as evidence. The court held that under Proposition 8, the 1982 anti-crime initiative, the state must abandon a more restrictive standard for the admissibility of evidence.

Upheld the power of local air pollution districts to control toxic emissions from factories and other stationary sources of contamination.

Ruled that only a close relative who is present at the scene of an accident may sue for emotional distress suffered from witnessing injury to the victim.