Death Penalty Upset for Man Whose Lawyer Was Alcoholic

SAN FRANCISCO —  The state Supreme Court on Thursday overturned the death sentence but upheld the murder conviction of a San Bernardino County man whose lawyer drank heavily during the trial and was arrested for drunk driving on his way to the courthouse.

The justices, ruling on a novel issue, unanimously rejected the contention that the defendant, Richard William Garrison, 48, was denied adequate representation because his trial lawyer was an alcoholic, and thus unable to think clearly and use good judgment.

The court said Garrison had failed to show that the attorney’s actual performance was inadequate and harmful to the defendant. A review of the case showed that the lawyer, who later died from the effects of alcoholism, did a “fine job” defending Garrison, the justices said.

A ruling that alcoholism by itself would render a lawyer’s efforts deficient “would invite defendants to challenge their convictions on the basis of speculation about the drinking habits of their attorneys, rather than on the basis of the attorney’s actual performance in court,” Justice Edward A. Panelli wrote for the court.

However, the court found that Garrison’s death sentence must be reversed because the trial judge improperly told jurors that if they voted to give the defendant life in prison without parole, instead of death, the governor could commute that sentence to permit eventual release on parole.

As in past cases, the court said such an instruction, without further explanation, was misleading because jurors were not told that the governor also can commute a sentence of death.

The ruling allows Garrison a new penalty trial to decide whether he should be sentenced to death or to life in prison without parole.

State Deputy Atty. Gen. Keith I. Motley said prosecutors had anticipated the reversal of the death sentence and welcomed the ruling upholding Garrison’s conviction over claims that it was invalid because of his lawyer’s alcoholism.

“The (defense) was not able to come up with any indication that the trial counsel’s performance was deficient in any way,” Motley said. “The defendant was well aware of the attorney’s alcoholism and made his own determination to retain him as counsel.”

Lawyer Unavailable

The lawyer for Garrison on appeal was not available for comment.

Garrison was charged and convicted in the 1979 fatal shootings of a Yucca Valley couple, Wanda and Victor Bennett, during a robbery in which the victims’ collections of old jewelry, coins and guns were stolen.

A companion present during the crime, Gary Roelle, testified that Garrison planned and carried out both killings. The jury did not decide who actually fired the shots. But the justices found that even if Garrison was an accomplice, there was sufficient proof of intent to kill--a legal requirement that must be met before a non-triggerman can be sentenced to death.

The issue of whether alcohol abuse by an attorney was grounds in itself to reverse a conviction was a new one for the court and, according to attorneys, has arisen only rarely in other states.

The justices acknowledged there was undisputed evidence that Garrison’s lawyer, Blendon Beardsley, consumed “large amounts” of alcohol each day of the trial and that on the second day of jury selection, he was arrested on his way to the courthouse for driving with a 0.27% blood-alcohol content, well beyond the 0.10% required for a showing of drunk driving.

A bailiff at the trial later said that the attorney “always smelled of alcohol,” but that he could not determine whether the lawyer was under its influence “because he always seemed to act the same.”

Change of Lawyers Offered

The justices pointed out that after Beardsley’s arrest, Garrison had turned down an offer for another court-appointed lawyer. And, they added, the trial judge, San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Bob N. Krug, had praised Beardsley for his “vigor and dedication” during the trial and had described him as “probably one of the finest defense counsels in this country.”

In other action Thursday, the justices:

- Ordered a two-year suspension from practice of Sherman Oaks attorney Paul I. Mostman, a former candidate for a Municipal Court judgeship who previously pleaded guilty and served a prison term on charges that he sought to hire an acquaintance to assault and seriously injure a former business partner.

In dissent, Justice David N. Eagleson said the case record “makes clear that (Mostman) intended to commit the ultimate act of murder and paid money to guarantee that result.” Mostman, he said, should be disbarred by the court.

- Refused to hear an appeal from Orange County Dist. Atty. Cecil Hicks from an appellate court ruling allowing judges to conduct closed, off-the-record plea-bargaining sessions with prosecutors and defense attorneys. Hicks had urged the high court to hold that such sessions must be held in open court.

- Let stand a state Court of Appeal ruling that held unconstitutional a state law making it a crime to make anonymous and annoying telephone calls. However, the justices ordered that the appellate decision could not be cited as precedent in other cases, thus leaving open the prospect of a more definitive, statewide ruling on the issue in another case.