SAN DIEGO - A state appeals court on Tuesday overturned a homeless North County man's murder convictions in connection with the 2004 deaths of two other homeless men.

In a 51-page opinion issued Tuesday, the Fourth District Court of Appeals in San Diego decided that James Daniel Soper should have received separate trials for each of the two murder charges against him instead of one trial for both counts. Combining the two charges in one trial was legally improper, the court ruled.

The court's opinion does not become final for 30 days. If the decision stands, Soper's case would then return to Superior Court for new trials.

Deputy District Attorney Steve Carver, the prosecutor at Soper's first trial, said Wednesday that he could not comment until the appeals court opinion is final.

The state attorney general's office represents the prosecution in Soper's appeal. Senior Assistant Attorney General Gary Schons, who supervises the criminal division of the state attorney general's office in San Diego, said his office is "studying the opinion" and that it "likely" will ask the state Supreme Court to review the case.

Soper's trial attorney, Deputy Public Defender Sloan Ostbye, welcomed the news of the appeals court's decision.

"I think it's wonderful," Ostbye said. "I think this is a great opportunity for Mr. Soper to get a fair trial. … Mr. Soper has always maintained his innocence."

Soper, 43 at the time, was convicted in August 2005 of first-degree murder in connection with the May 2004 slaying of George Rigby, 44, in Oceanside and second-degree murder in connection with the September 2004 killing of James Alan Olson, 50, in Carlsbad. He was sentenced to 86 years to life in state prison.

Carver, the prosecutor, had argued to the jury that similarities between the killings indicated both men were killed by the same person, and that a "mountain of evidence" proved Soper's guilt.

Ostbye argued to the jury that the cases were not as similar as Carver had argued and that the case against Soper was weak.

The appeals court opinion stated that evidence from each slaying was not admissible in court in connection with the other killing and that the prejudice against Soper from trying the two charges together outweighed any benefit of combining the cases.

The appeals court opinion stated that similarities between the killings "are generic, redundant, irrelevant, or simply not all that similar."

The "potentially relevant similarities" between the deaths were that both victims were homeless, both were killed by a single blow to the head while sleeping, both knew Soper, and both crime scenes had Soper's fingerprints, the opinion stated.

However, those similarities were not distinctive enough to "virtually eliminate the possibility" that someone else committed the crimes, the court ruled.

The court also decided that combining a "weak" case with a another case so that the combined evidence from both cases changes the outcome of the charges may be a legal error.

"In this case, there was little admissible evidence tending to demonstrate that Soper committed the Olson killing," the appeals court opinion stated.

The opinion also stated that a "considerable amount of evidence of Soper's guilt" in Rigby's death existed, but it was not "overwhelming."

A "reasonable probability" exists that Soper would get a more favorable verdict if the charges were not "improperly joined for trial," so the convictions must be overturned, the opinion stated.

- Contact staff writer Scott Marshall at (760) 631-6623 or smarshall@nctimes.com. Comment at nctimes.com.

On the Net:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/D047875.PDF