Court Upholds Death Penalty in Murder of Market Clerk

The California Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the death sentence imposed on a Los Angeles street gang member for the murder of a convenience store clerk that was recorded in grim detail on videotape.

The justices, in a 5-2 decision, rejected an appeal by Adam Miranda, 26, convicted of the murder of Gary Black during an attempted robbery at an AM-PM mini-market in Eagle Rock in September, 1980.

Any procedural errors that occurred during the trial were minor and could not have affected the outcome, the court said. “Even when a defendant’s life is at stake, he is ‘entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one,’ ” Justice Edward A. Panelli wrote for the majority.

The court refused to accept the contention that the defendant’s two trial counsels had improperly failed to present mitigating evidence of Miranda’s character and background.

To do so, the court said, would have opened the way for the prosecution to offer evidence of the defendant’s extensive criminal background--including his “longtime involvement” in gang activities--and might have done his case more harm than good.

Panelli’s opinion was joined by the four other court members appointed by Gov. George Deukmejian--Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas and Justices John A. Arguelles, David N. Eagleson and Marcus M. Kaufman.

The court, more conservative under Lucas, has upheld death sentences in three of the five capital cases it has reviewed since the departure of Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and two other justices defeated in the fall, 1986, election.

Broussard Dissents

The decision Thursday drew a sharp dissent from Justice Allen E. Broussard, who accused the majority of a “hasty rejection” of Miranda’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Justice Stanley Mosk joined Broussard in disagreeing with the majority.

The dissenters, while agreeing Miranda’s murder conviction should be upheld, said it appeared that the defendant’s lawyers made no attempt to find mitigating evidence that might have persuaded the jury to send him to prison rather than the gas chamber. At least, they said, a hearing should be held on the issue.

“I cannot believe that our judicial resources are so limited that we cannot afford to take the time to get all the facts before deciding this case,” Broussard wrote.

William J. Owens of Sacramento, one of the lawyers representing Miranda on appeal, said the court will be asked for a rehearing and, if the request is refused, the case will be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court. “Our feeling was the jury should have got to hear the mitigating evidence,” he said. “It doesn’t do a defendant much good to stand mute in that situation.”

State Deputy Atty. Gen. Frederick Grab said he doubted that there was any worthwhile favorable background and character evidence for Miranda to present. “He’s not the most sympathetic character,” Grab said. “He appears to be a cold-blooded killer.”

Miranda was convicted of the fatal shooting of Black and severe wounding of another clerk, Kelly Chandler. The crime was recorded by an automatic audio-videotape camera inside the store.

The videotape and a subsequent recording of incriminating jailhouse conversations by Miranda that were picked up by hidden microphones were played at the trial.

A Los Angeles Superior Court jury convicted Miranda of first-degree murder in July, 1982, and in the penalty phase of the case a week later took less than 40 minutes to find that he should die in the gas chamber. A co-defendant in the crime, Arnold Gonzales, also was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole.

In his appeal to the justices, Miranda contended that he should be granted a new trial because his lawyers had failed to call his mother and sister as witnesses to testify that his parents were alcoholics, that he sniffed glue and began drinking at an early age and that he had become a member of the Frogtown gang at age 11.

Such mitigating evidence, along with two psychological reports about his delinquency that were not presented, might have persuaded the jury not to impose death, Miranda contended.

The two lawyers who represented the defendant at trial, Joseph Ingber and H. Clay Jacke, presented declarations saying they had sound tactical reasons for not presenting the evidence. If they had, they said, damaging testimony about Miranda’s violent background might have been elicited during cross-examination.

Panelli’s opinion noted that defense attorneys are not obligated to introduce “every conceivable item” of potentially mitigating evidence. He said Miranda’s trial lawyers made a reasonable and competent tactical decision.

Refused to Reconsider

In another action Thursday, the justices refused to reconsider their ruling last month that the death penalty can be imposed without a jury finding that the defendant intended to kill his victim.

The court, in a 6-1 decision Oct. 13, overturned a major ruling issued under Chief Justice Bird in 1983 requiring that such intent must be found when the defendant kills in the commission of a felony, such as robbery, rape or burglary.

State prosecutors had said that the Bird court decision had forced penalty retrials in 13 cases and might have affected death judgments in at least 29 other cases.

An attorney for the defendant in the Oct. 13 ruling, James Phillip Anderson, asked the court for a rehearing of the case, contending it would violate constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment to permit the death penalty for accidental killings.

Rehearings are rarely granted by the court, and the justices, in a brief order signed by Lucas, declined to reconsider Anderson’s case without dissent.