No New Trial for RivCo Man Who Murdered Wife, 3-year-old Daughter to Collect Insurance Payout

By City News Service:

A Riverside man sentenced to death for murdering his wife and 3-year-old daughter to collect life insurance proceeds on them will not get a new trial, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously this week.

Kim Raymond Kopatz, 60, was convicted in March 2001 of slaying 35-year- old Mary Kopatz and his youngest daughter, Carley. The same jury that found him guilty of two counts of first-degree murder with special circumstance allegations of taking multiple lives in the same crime and killing for financial gain recommended the death penalty for Kopatz, and a Riverside County Superior Court judge affirmed the recommendation.

In his appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence given against him during his trial and penalty proceedings had a “cumulative prejudicial effect” that warranted a reversal of his conviction and sentence.

Kopatz cited an interview with detectives a few hours after the victims’ bodies were discovered, arguing he should have received an advisement of his rights prior to sitting down with the two investigators. However, the Supreme Court found the nature of the question-and-answer session was informal and not a “custodial interrogation,” thus not establishing grounds for a Miranda warning.

Kopatz also argued that a witness’ testimony about her now-deceased husband’s statements regarding seeing Kopatz -- who insisted that he had never left his property -- walking around the morning of the murders was hearsay that should never have been admitted as evidence.

The justices were not persuaded, noting the witness gave the same testimony during a preliminary hearing at which he appeared shortly before his death.

The defendant decried the fact the victim impact statements given during the penalty phase of his trial were “so excessive and prejudicial that it resulted in a trial that was fundamentally unfair,” according to the court’s narrative.

Seven of Mary Kopatz’s relatives testified, describing how much they missed her and Carley and the pain they had endured after the murders.

“The family members’ testimony properly explained the nature of their relationship with the two victims, the immediate effects of the murders and the residual and continuing impact of the (killings) on their lives,” Justice Ming Chin wrote.

The defense argued the Kopatz jury had been misdirected on the use of verdict forms, which contained several errors. The justices acknowledged one “technical” error, but noted it created a superfluity -- not a violation of the defendant’s rights.

The court also rejected the defendant’s contention that the death penalty violates “humanity and decency” to the point it should not be applied.

According to court papers, by April 1999, Kopatz had maxed out his credit cards, accruing $117,883 in debt playing the stock and commodities markets. The stay-at-home dad had plundered the family’s bank accounts and was desperate for money. Life insurance policies on his wife and youngest daughter totaled $800,000, according to the court’s narrative.

On the morning of April 22, the defendant strangled Mary and Carley Kopatz in the family’s single-story home in the 9100 block of Garfield Street. He dumped their bodies in his van and partially disrobed Mary Kopatz to make the crime appear to be a random sexual assault, robbery-murder that occurred while the woman and child were running errands.

Kopatz parked the vehicle about a mile from his house. The bodies were discovered the same day, and following a weeks-long investigation, Kopatz was arrested and charged, according to court papers.

(Image via Shutterstock)