Title: State of New Jersey v. Marko Bey

State: new-jersey

Issuer: New Jersey Supreme Court

Document:

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). POLLOCK, J., writing for a majority of the Court. Marko Bey appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his death sentence. In 1984, a jury convicted Bey of murdering Carol Peniston. An autopsy revealed that Ms. Peniston had died of strangulation, that she had been beaten, sexually assaulted, and that someone had stomped on her chest, causing fracturing of the ribs and internal hemorrhaging. Bey's sneaker print matched the footprint on Ms. Peniston's chest. His fingerprints were found on the mirror in her car, which had been abandoned in Newark. Genetic characteristics of spermatozoa found on Ms. Peniston's coat matched Bey's saliva. Bey was arrested a short time after the murder for receiving stolen property -- Ms. Peniston's car. After five hours in police custody, he confessed to the murder. Bey gave a written statement in which he admitted accosting Ms. Peniston in front of her apartment building in Asbury Park and demanding money. When he heard someone coming, Bey grabbed her and led her to a shed near an old industrial building. In the ensuing events, Bey repeatedly struck Ms. Peniston, sexually assaulted her, and took eight dollars and her car keys. Bey took the car to Newark, and abandoned it after he was in a one-car accident. After the penalty-phase hearing, Bey was sentenced to death. This Court upheld the convictions, but reversed the death sentence in Bey II. Following a second penalty-phase hearing in 1990, a jury again sentenced Bey to death. This Court affirmed the death sentence in Bey III, and found that the sentence was not disproportionate in Bey IV. Bey filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at his second penalty-phase trial. Bey claims that his attorney insufficiently investigated and presented evidence to support the mitigating factors. He also claims that the ineffective assistance led to the denial of his right to testify and his right of allocution. Bey raises several other claims, including the assertion that he is entitled to a new guilt-phase trial on the issue whether he acted with an intent to cause serious bodily harm as opposed to an intent to kill. HELD: The denial of Bey's petition for post-conviction relief is affirmed. 1. To prove ineffective assistance of counsel in a penalty-phase trial, a defendant must satisfy a two-pronged test. First, defendant must demonstrate that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Second, defendant must prove that but for counsel's errors, the jury's deliberations would have been affected substantially. The latter, prejudice prong, can be satisfied by a showing that counsel's ineffective assistance substantially affected the jury's deliberations. (pp. 5-11) 2. Although the preparation of Bey's counsel for the penalty-phase proceeding was incomplete, this does not in itself constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court must evaluate the specific claims asserted at the PCR hearing to determine whether counsel's failures prejudiced Bey. (pp. 11-17) 3. Bey's specific assertions are that his penalty-phase counsel failed to present adequate mitigating evidence about his mother's abuse and neglect, his untreated sexual deviancy, and his addiction to alcohol and drugs. Much of this evidence would have been merely cumulative, and there were sound strategic reasons for not presenting some of it. Bey's counsel was deficient, however, in failing to pursue and present some useful evidence. Nonetheless, this evidence would not have affected substantially the jury's penalty-phase deliberations. (pp. 17-38) 5. The Court also agrees that Bey's counsel was deficient in advising him concerning his right of allocution. The record suggests, however, that Bey had no desire to read a statement of allocution to the jury. Given that a jury had rejected a similar statement in the prior penalty-phase proceeding, and that none of his attorneys believed such a statement would be effective, the Court concludes that the statement would not have affected substantially the jury's deliberations. (pp. 47-60) 6. None of the other claims made by Bey in the post-conviction proceeding warrant relief. (pp. 61-81) Denial of defendant's petition for post-conviction relief from his death sentence is AFFIRMED. JUSTICE HANDLER, dissenting, is of the view that Bey's counsel in the penalty-phase retrial was ineffective in several respects. Counsel's most critical error was the failure to advise Bey concerning his right of allocution. Bey's draft allocution statement was a powerful expression of his feelings of remorse that would have substantially affected jury deliberations. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES GARIBALDI and COLEMAN join in JUSTICE POLLOCK'S opinion. JUSTICE HANDLER has filed a separate, dissenting opinion, Point II of which is joined by JUSTICES O'HERN and STEIN. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 171 September Term 1997 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MARKO BEY, Defendant-Appellant. Argued October 27, 1998 -- Decided August 11, 1999 On appeal from the Superior Court, Law Division, Monmouth County. Claudia Van Wyk, Deputy Public Defender II, and Sylvia M. Orenstein, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Ivelisse Torres, Public Defender, attorney). Alton D. Kenney, First Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (John A. Kaye, Monmouth County Prosecutor, attorney; Mark P. Stalford, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). Catherine A. Foddai, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae, Attorney General of New Jersey (Peter Verniero, Attorney General, attorney). The opinion of the Court was delivered by Defendant, Marko Bey, appeals as of right under Rule 2:2 1(a)(3) from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his death sentence. He contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his second penalty-phase trial for the murder of Carol Peniston. Specifically, he maintains that his attorney insufficiently investigated and presented evidence to support the mitigating factors. Bey also argues that the ineffective assistance of counsel led to the denial of his right to testify and his right of allocution. Defendant raises several other claims. Among them is the assertion that under State v. Gerald, 113 N.J. 40 (1988), he is entitled to a new guilt-phase trial on the issue whether he acted with an intent to cause serious bodily harm as opposed to with an intent to kill. We reject all of defendant's claims and affirm his death sentence. Subsequent investigation revealed that [Ms. Peniston's] car had been involved in a one car collision in Newark . . . on April 26, 1983, approximately four hours after Ms. Peniston left Neptune High School. The defendant's fingerprints were on the rear view mirror. At approximately 3:30 p.m. on May 3, Asbury Park police interviewed Attilio Robot, who had found Ms. Peniston's pocketbook near an old industrial building in Asbury Park. Shortly thereafter, the police discovered her body in a shed near the building. An autopsy performed the following day, May 4, disclosed that Ms. Peniston had been dead for several days. The autopsy further disclosed that she had been beaten, sexually assaulted, and strangled. From a sneaker imprint on her chest and from evidence of fractured ribs and hemorrhaging of the right lung, vertebral column, and right atrium of the heart, Dr. Stanley Becker, the Monmouth County medical examiner, concluded that Ms. Peniston's assailant had stomped on her chest. Dr. Becker determined that the ultimate cause of death, however, was ligature strangulation. Subsequent police investigation revealed that characteristics of spermatozoa found on the victim's coat were consistent with those of defendant's saliva, and that defendant's sneakers made an imprint that was similar to the impression on the victim's chest. [On May 6, defendant was arrested for receiving stolen property, Ms. Peniston's Ford Granada. After five hours in police custody, defendant confessed to the murder.] He then gave a written statement, in which he admitted that he accosted Ms. Peniston in front of her apartment building and demanded money from her. The statement continued that when he heard someone coming, he grabbed her and led her to the shed. In the ensuing events, he repeatedly struck Ms. Peniston, sexually assaulted her, and took eight dollars as well as the car keys from her pocketbook. While on his way to Newark in her car, he collided with an iron fence alongside a graveyard, and abandoned the car. To avoid repetition, the facts relating to the 1990 penalty phase retrial and the PCR hearing are set forth in the relevant sections of this opinion. A. Ineffective-Assistance-of-Counsel Standard Fundamental to criminal justice is a defendant's constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). The test for measuring the effectiveness of counsel in the penalty-phase of a capital trial is set forth in the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States in Strickland, supra, and of this Court in State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987). That test, known as the "Strickland/Fritz" test, provides: To prove ineffective assistance of counsel in his penalty-phase trial, defendant must pass a two-pronged test. First, defendant must demonstrate that counsel's performance was truly deficient, with such grievous errors that counsel was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, defendant must prove that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the jury's penalty-phase deliberations would have been affected substantially. To satisfy the first prong of the Strickland/Fritz test, the defendant must show that 'counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. . . . Judicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential' . . . [and] must avoid second-guessing defense counsel's tactical decisions 'under the distorting effects of hindsight.' State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 156-57 (1997) (Marshall III) (quoting Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at 687-89, 104 S. Ct. at 2064-65, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 693-94). Merely because a trial strategy fails does not mean that counsel was ineffective. State v. Davis, 116 N.J. 341, 357 (1989). An inadequate investigation of the law or fact, however, dispels the presumption of competence that might otherwise arise from a strategic choice. Ibid. A defendant can satisfy the requirement of prejudice by showing that counsel's ineffective assistance substantially affected the jury's penalty-phase deliberation to a degree sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Marshall III, supra, 148 N.J. at 250 (quoting Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 698). The defendant has the burden of establishing a reasonable probability that the omitted information would have substantially affected the jury's deliberations during the penalty phase. See id. at 250-51. Although the second prong of the Strickland/Fritz standard is relaxed in the context of a penalty-phase proceeding, that prong, contrary to the dissent, requires more than a showing that "a reasonable juror would have considered the material in his or her deliberative process." Post at (slip op. at 4). Unsurprisingly, because the dissent applies the wrong standard, it reaches the wrong result. B. Analysis of Ineffective-Assistance-of-Counsel Claim 1. Aifer's Investigation Defendant first argues that Aifer's overall representation was ineffective. He contends that Aifer did nothing for months after she was assigned the case and that her efforts were both cursory and untimely. In particular, defendant questions Aifer's failure to retain a social worker or investigator to construct defendant's social history. He also calls attention to her refusal to delegate any responsibility to her co-counsel, McCauley. The State counters that Aifer sufficiently familiarized herself with the facts and the law and that she implemented a sound trial strategy. According to the State, Aifer reasonably declined to introduce cumulative evidence of defendant's life history; instead, she focused on the most important facts. Her strategy of connecting mitigation evidence through the testimony of expert witnesses presented a unified theory that explained defendant's acts. Therefore, the introduction of a social history prepared by a mitigation specialist was unnecessary. Lastly, the State argues that further investigation and preparation would not have produced any testimony that reasonably would have affected the jury's deliberations. In August 1988, this Court rendered decisions in defendant's trials for the murders of Cheryl Alston and Carol Peniston. Bey I, supra; Bey II, supra. In addition to remanding this case for a new penalty-phase trial, Bey II, supra, we vacated defendant's conviction and death sentence for murdering Alston, Bey I, supra. The Public Defender assigned Aifer to the retrial of the Alston case and the retrial of the penalty-phase of the Peniston case. Aifer met with defendant's appellate attorneys, Smith and Borman, to discuss strategy in both cases. Smith and Borman emphasized the importance of working with defendant's mother and recommended a social worker who could assist Aifer. Over the next year, Aifer did not work on either case, except for reviewing the case files. She did not contact a social worker or any other investigator. As a result, in August 1989, the Public Defender's Office held a meeting to discuss Aifer's lack of investigation. In particular, Smith criticized Aifer's inaction. Despite the meeting, Aifer continued her representation of defendant in both cases. Shortly thereafter, Aifer began preparing for the Alston retrial. After defendant was again convicted for murdering Alston, Aifer concentrated on the Peniston case. In particular, Aifer unsuccessfully moved to preclude the use of the Alston murder conviction as an aggravating factor in the Peniston case. Because she needed additional time to prepare the case, Aifer moved to stay the Peniston trial. On June 4, 1990, the trial court denied the motion and set August 20, 1990 as the date to commence the penalty-phase hearing. Aifer immediately began focusing on the presentation of the mitigation evidence. On June 21, 1990, Aifer, according to her PCR testimony, began a compressed, hard-working effort to prepare the case. Aifer conducted in-person interviews of seven potential witnesses and telephone interviews with three other potential witnesses. Ms. Bey, defendant's most important witness, testified at the PCR hearing that Aifer met with her only once, in a meeting that lasted approximately one hour. Aifer also arranged for three medical experts, Kay, Young, and Pincus, to evaluate defendant. She hired a jury consultant to assist her on the voir dire. Instead of retaining an investigator or social worker, Aifer interviewed witnesses herself. She also felt that a mitigation specialist would not necessarily garner any additional evidence. Aifer conceded that she did not involve her co-counsel in the investigation or witness preparation. In 1994, just before the start of another capital trial, Aifer resigned from the Public Defender's Office. Aifer believed that her superior, Assistant Public Defender Dale Jones, was unduly interfering with her case. The following morning, she submitted her letter of resignation: Please accept my letter of resignation, effective immediately, from all of my duties as an employee of the Office of Public Defender. After much reflection, and after discussing the matter with Dale Jones, I have come to the conclusion that I am not competent to handle the responsibilities of being an attorney within the Office. In particular, I am convinced of my inability, as corroborated by Mr. Jones, to properly represent our clients in capital cases. As you may already know, my inadequate performance resulted in a death sentence being imposed upon Mr. Marko Bey. It is intolerable to me that I may yet jeopardize the life of another young man, Mr. David Cooper, currently on trial in Monmouth County. I regret that I cannot give more notice, however, the situation is urgent. I simply cannot continue in any capacity as a member of the staff. At the PCR hearing, Aifer explained that this letter was intended as a sarcastic and facetious response to internal criticism. Our review of these facts leads us to conclude that Aifer's preparation was incomplete. The preparation of mitigation evidence is a substantial undertaking. To postpone preparation until two months before a penalty-phase hearing is not commensurate with the dreadful consequences of such a hearing. See Davis, supra, 116 N.J. at 353. As Aifer's motion for a stay reflects, she should have started earlier. Despite the incompleteness of Aifer's investigation, we decline to find that her conduct constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. Absent specific prejudicial errors, a general insufficiency in counsel's performance does not justify vacating a death sentence on post-conviction relief. The case law makes clear that such purely speculative deficiencies in representation are insufficient to justify reversal. Fritz, supra, 105 N.J. at 44. Only after evaluating the specific claims asserted at the PCR hearing may we determine whether counsel's failure to introduce mitigating evidence prejudiced defendant. Although the lack of sufficient time to prepare for trial can support an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, a defendant generally may support that claim with proof of specific evidence adduced at a post-conviction hearing, but not at the original trial. See Glenn v. Tate, 71 F.3d 1204, 1207 (6th Cir. 1995) (finding prejudice in sentencing proceedings where counsel failed to present pertinent evidence of mental history and mental capacity discovered at post-sentencing hearing); Blanco v. Singletary, 943 F.2d 1477, 1501-02 (11th Cir. 1991) (holding that defendant was prejudiced at sentencing phase by counsel's failure to discover and present any available mitigating evidence concerning defendant's impoverished childhood, epileptic seizures, and organic brain damage); State v. Tokman, 564 So. 2d 1339, 1345 (Miss. 1990) (affirming lower court's conclusion that evidence of defendant's psychological traits presented at post conviction hearing could have affected judgment at trial). The presumption of prejudice is reserved for cases involving the complete denial of the right to counsel. Fritz, supra, 105 N.J. at 53. Here, Aifer's performance does not sink to the level of the constructive denial of the right to counsel. From her prior representation of defendant in the retrial of the Alston murder, Aifer was familiar with defendant and his history. She had the benefit of the records in the original Peniston trial and the Alston trial. Additionally, Aifer interviewed many witnesses and arranged for three mental health experts to testify. In sum, we decline to find that Aifer's preparation and investigation support the conclusion that her assistance of counsel was presumptively ineffective. The deficiencies in her preparation, however, point to the need for the Public Defender's Office to supervise more closely attorneys engaged in capital murder trials. We now turn to the question whether there were any specific deficiencies by counsel that prejudiced defendant at the penalty-phase proceeding. a. Abuse and Neglect To support the catch-all factor, defense counsel presented extensive evidence at the 1990 penalty-phase retrial of Patricia Bey's abuse and neglect of defendant. Ms. Bey told the jury that she was an alcoholic and that she had abused alcohol during her pregnancy with defendant. She admitted to neglecting and abusing her children generally and to beating defendant on many occasions. As we related in affirming defendant's death sentence: Ms. Bey testified that on one occasion she knocked defendant down, causing defendant to hit his head on a coffee table and lose consciousness. Although defendant's head was gashed, she did not take him to a doctor. Ms. Bey also recalled another time when her neighbors had threatened to call the police if she did not stop beating defendant. [Bey III, supra, 129 N.J. at 573.] Ms. Bey acknowledged that she always blamed defendant when things went wrong and that she scolded and hit him more than the other children. Her apartment was dirty, dark, and cold. Out of fear, she covered the windows and mirrors and did not turn on the lights. Six other witnesses confirmed Ms. Bey's testimony. Wendolyn El, Juliet El, and Clarence Horton described Patricia Bey's alcoholism and her physical abuse of defendant. Defendant's three mental health experts communicated to the jury defendant's own account of his childhood. They confirmed that Ms. Bey abused all her children, but that she meted out the harshest treatment to defendant: She kept the lights off in the apartment, and covered the windows and mirrors out of an alcohol-induced paranoia that the devil would get her. Several witnesses described the cold, dark, slovenly state of the Beys' apartments and the unkempt condition of the children. . . . Growing up, defendant frequently received severe, unpredictable beatings with broom handles, belts, belt buckles, straps and other items. [Id. at 572.] Wendolyn El explained that a neighbor of the Bey family told her that Ms. Bey beat Marko all the time. Once, when El visited the Bey apartment, Ms. Bey had beaten defendant so badly that he fled from the apartment and ran down the street. El surmised that Ms. Bey had singled out defendant for these brutal beatings because his father had spurned her. She also ascribed defendant's crimes to defendant's anger against his mother: mentally Marko did not kill those two women, it was his mother that he was killing. [Id. at 573.] El also stated that Ms. Bey's alcoholism was so severe that she experienced blackouts and was hospitalized on several occasions. Horton revealed that defendant once told him: I need to get out of here and asked to live with him in Vermont. According to Horton, defendant and his brothers did not have food, water, or clothing. Defendant was forced to care for his brothers, and would find food for them to eat. Juliet El saw Ms. Bey hit defendant. On one occasion, El saw Ms. Bey beat defendant so severely that defendant was left shaking and crying. Despite this testimony, defendant claims that counsel was deficient in demonstrating his mother's abuse and neglect. Defendant argues that Aifer should have introduced the testimony that was elicited at the PCR evidentiary hearing. At the PCR evidentiary hearing, fifteen witnesses testified concerning Ms. Bey's abuse and neglect of defendant. Three penalty-phase witnesses - Ms. Bey, Wendolyn El and Clarence Horton - testified again at the PCR evidentiary hearing. El's and Horton's accounts generally repeated their penalty-phase testimony. The PCR court did not allow Horton to testify about Ms. Bey's childhood in Alabama. Bey's mother, however, described her physical abuse and neglect of defendant in greater detail than she had previously. Ms. Bey explained that she physically abused her children and frequently beat defendant so severely that he bore bruises and welts. She recalled several of the specific incidents of her physical abuse of defendant that other witnesses had described during the 1990 penalty-phase trial. Ms. Bey stated that, when defendant was a child, she drank up to a quart of gin per day. She did not provide the children with food and rarely knew their whereabouts. Defendant was forced to take responsibility for his neglected siblings. In sum, she described her children's living conditions as hell. For the first time, Ms. Bey testified that during defendant's childhood she had been hospitalized many times for conditions related to her alcoholism. She had been treated for pneumonia, a heart problem, blackouts, and seizures that required her to wear a straightjacket. In addition to Ms. Bey's testimony, the defense presented four witnesses whom Aifer had interviewed but chose not to present at the penalty-phase trial. These four witnesses, Benjamin Bey, Ri El, Karrel McGloun, and Bernadine Phillips Jackson, corroborated Ms. Bey's account of her alcoholism and frequent physical abuse of defendant. They emphasized that Ms. Bey often blamed defendant for things he had not done and beat him more than her other children. According to these witnesses, Ms. Bey was an unfit parent who did not keep her home clean or feed her children. Defendant acted as a substitute parent; he made sure that his younger brothers stayed in school and had food and clean clothes. Lastly, several witnesses whom Aifer did not interview before the penalty-phase trial testified at the PCR hearing. These witnesses included Cora Patterson, Kim Alston, James Sullivan Evans, Kenneth McGloun, Mack El, Theopolis Stewart, Armand Veltre, and John Kuttin. Patterson, Alston, and Evans focused on defendant's relationship with his father. They stated that defendant's father did not provide him with any emotional or financial support. Defendant's father openly disputed his paternity of defendant. Patterson recalled that defendant's father told her to let defendant live on the street. According to the witnesses, defendant was an angry and frustrated teenager whom Ms. Bey often beat. Stewart and Veltre described defendant's inappropriate dress and body odor. Kuttin testified that he provided the only means of transportation to defendant's Little League baseball games. Because defendant had to go home and take care of his brothers, he could not socialize with the rest of the team. At the PCR hearing, Aifer explained why she did not offer several of these witnesses at the penalty-phase trial. She did not call Benjamin Bey or Karell McGloun because they downplayed the extent of their mother's alcoholism and abusive behavior. Likewise, Henry Bey insisted that defendant's mother did not abuse alcohol while defendant was living with her. Aifer did not present Ri El as a witness because El was emotionally fragile and would not withstand cross-examination. Similarly, Aifer did not call Jackson as a witness because the prosecution would have cross-examined Jackson about defendant's violent sexual attack of her. Jackson previously had given the Prosecutor's Office a statement concerning defendant's attempt to rape her. Lastly, Macko McGloun did not testify because Aifer could not locate him immediately prior to the trial. Aifer stated that, even if he had been available, she would not have had him testify because he denied paternity of defendant and denied having failed to support him. The PCR court concluded that Aifer effectively presented evidence of Ms. Bey's abuse and neglect of defendant. The court endorsed Aifer's strategic decisions and determined that the testimony elicited at PCR was cumulative. Our evaluation of the PCR testimony likewise leads us to the conclusion that Aifer was not ineffective in the presentation of evidence of abuse and neglect that supported the catch-all factor. Aifer was not deficient in eliciting testimony from Wendolyn El, Juliet El, and Clarence Horton. Juliet El did not present any additional testimony at the PCR evidentiary hearing, and Wendolyn El's and Horton's PCR testimony repeated their penalty phase testimony. The PCR court properly ruled that Horton's proffered testimony concerning Ms. Bey's upbringing was irrelevant. We question, however, the sufficiency of a solitary interview with Ms. Bey. Based on that interview, Aifer concluded that Ms. Bey would not be forthcoming in her testimony. Thus, Aifer decided to call other witnesses to corroborate Ms. Bey's account of her abuse and neglect of defendant. Additional meetings between Aifer and Ms. Bey may have induced Ms. Bey to be more forthcoming about the details of her behavior. Ms. Bey testified at the PCR hearing that she was reluctant to provide the full details of her relationship with defendant at the penalty-phase trial because I was frightened. I didn't want anybody to know Marko's mother was a drunk and an abusive mother. Other meetings may have helped Ms. Bey overcome her fear. Indeed, Lois Nardone, a social worker, met with Ms. Bey more than ten times over the course of one year. Ms. Bey testified that she was not willing to tell Nardone everything at first. After talking with her on several occasions, however, it all came out. The possible results of additional conversations with Ms. Bey are uncertain. She indicated at the PCR hearing that she had testified truthfully at the penalty-phase trial and that she was doing her best to cooperate with the defense. In fact, she articulated her testimony at the PCR hearing more fully than at the penalty-phase trial because, as she explained, I have more ability now to open myself. I can speak more clearly now than I have spoken in five, six years. Ms. Bey's reluctance to detail her behavior may have had more to with her physical and mental condition at the time of the penalty-phase proceeding than with her lack of familiarity with defendant's attorneys. Even if Ms. Bey had testified more fully at the penalty phase trial, her testimony would not have affected the jury's deliberations. The additional testimony was largely cumulative of evidence revealed by other penalty-phase witnesses. Although the jury might have weighed more heavily Ms. Bey's own account of her conduct, much of the other witnesses' testimony included descriptions of her conduct that they had witnessed personally. The only new testimony Ms. Bey provided at the PCR hearing concerned her hospitalizations for treatment resulting from her use of alcohol. Through the testimony of other witnesses, however, the jury was painfully aware of Ms. Bey's alcoholism. We also find that Aifer was deficient for failing to call Benjamin Bey, Ri El, Karrel McGloun and, Bernadine Jackson to testify. Aifer's lack of investigation and preparation leads us to disregard the presumption of reasonableness that generally attaches to a defense counsel's decisions concerning the calling of. See supra at 11. For example, Karrell McGloun testified that Aifer met with him for only fifteen minutes. Similarly, Aifer never met with Ri El and based her evaluation of the witness on mere reputation. Accepting their testimony at the PCR hearing, Aifer was deficient for not presenting these four witnesses at the penalty-phase trial. We agree with the PCR court, however, that this evidence was cumulative. The penalty-phase jury heard overwhelming evidence of Ms. Bey's alcoholism and her abuse of defendant. Ms. Bey, in testimony that El confirmed, admitted that she singled out defendant for the most frequent beatings. From Horton, the jury knew that defendant and his brothers regularly did not have food or clean clothing and that defendant took care of his brothers. Therefore, the four witnesses' testimony merely would have reinforced the penalty-phase testimony. Similarly, Aifer should have interviewed the eight witnesses whom she did not interview before the trial, but whom defendant has identified as providing material testimony. The testimony of those witnesses, however, merely would have been cumulative of the testimony of the other witnesses. For example, the explanation of Macko McGloun's emotional and financial neglect of defendant pales in comparison to that of the physical abuse and neglect defendant suffered from his mother. We conclude that the testimony of the witnesses whom Aifer did not interview could not have altered the penalty-phase jury's deliberations. Lastly, defendant has not met his burden of proving that testimony from Macko McGloun or Henry Bey, who did not testify at the PCR hearing, could have affected the jury's deliberations. Defendant's claim is mere speculation. Thus, we conclude that defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel with regard to the presentation of the evidence of abuse and neglect. b. Untreated Sexual Deviance At the 1990 penalty-phase trial, defense counsel did not present any evidence that defendant suffered from an untreated sexual deviance. Defendant contends that counsel should have informed the jury of defendant's prior inappropriate sexual behavior, together with the absence of treatment for that behavior. Such information, according to defendant, could have helped explain defendant's later criminal conduct and thereby supported a finding of the catch-all mitigating factor. At the PCR hearing, Jackson and Wendolyn El testified about defendant's sexual conduct. Jackson described defendant's attempt to sexually assault her two days before he was arrested for the Peniston murder. Defendant tied her to her bed with her stockings and lay on top of her. After she screamed, defendant freed her. When defendant later apologized, Jackson forgave him. She thought that defendant appeared to have been in an alcohol induced trance at the time of the incident. El discussed three incidents in which defendant engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct. When defendant was ten years old, he fondled his four-year-old cousin's vagina. At sixteen, he attempted to molest El's neighbor, a senior citizen. Defendant once tried to touch his older cousin's genitals. Defendant never received treatment for any sexual disorder. No evidence of a disorder or failure to obtain treatment, however, was introduced. Aifer testified at the PCR hearing that she did not introduce evidence relating to defendant's sexual deviance. She explained that the information would have alienated the jury and provided it with an additional reason to give defendant a death sentence. The PCR court concluded that Aifer made a reasonable tactical decision by refusing to introduce evidence of prior sexual misconduct. It found that Jackson's and El's testimony would have inflamed the jury rather than persuaded it to spare Bey's life. We agree. Aifer was fully aware of Jackson's and El's potential testimony concerning defendant's sexual conduct. Both Aifer's investigation and trial strategy were sufficient. Although the evidence of prior sexual crimes does not directly support a statutory aggravating factor, it had the propensity to demonize defendant in the eyes of the jury. Acts of sexual deviance, moreover, do not constitute strong evidence to support the catch-all mitigating factor. No evidence at the penalty-phase trial or during the PCR hearing demonstrated that defendant's sexual misconduct was caused by a psychological disorder. For example, after Jackson shouted at defendant, he stopped, suggesting that he was able to control his aggression. His subsequent apology also indicates that, despite any disorder, he understood that his behavior was wrong. Defendant argues that Aifer's overall trial strategy was to introduce ample evidence to explain defendant's antisocial behavior. Thus, defendant claims that offering evidence of his sexual offenses have supplemented that strategy. The jury was told of defendant's entire juvenile record and of his attempts to rob or sexually assault three other women. Finally, the jury was informed of his conviction for the Alston murder. According to defendant, the jury could not have been further inflamed by evidence of the sexual assault on Jackson. The jury, however, might have been offended by hearing from Jackson of defendant's sexual assault on her, as opposed to hearing of the assault as filtered through the testimony of the expert witnesses. Moreover, Jackson's testimony of defendant's attack, which occurred close in time to the murders, could have undermined defendant's contention that he acted out of control as a result of a mental condition. We conclude that Aifer was not ineffective for failing to introduce evidence of untreated sexual misconduct. c. Evidence of Defendant's Drug and Alcohol Abuse In support of the catch-all mitigating factor, six witnesses testified at the 1990 penalty phase retrial about defendant's abuse of alcohol and drugs. Ms. Bey, Wendolyn El and Horton explained that defendant had abused alcohol since the age of ten years old. Ms. Bey and Ms. El recalled defendant's hospitalization after being found on the side of the road unconscious as a result of a drug and alcohol overdose. Additionally, defendant's experts told the jury that defendant had abused alcohol and drugs throughout his life. According to Dr. Young, defendant began drinking alcohol at age nine, and later used both marijuana and cocaine. Dr. Young stated that defendant told him that he had been heavily under the influence of drugs or alcohol during both the Alston and Peniston murders. Dr. Pincus testified that defendant was constantly under the influence of alcohol and drugs. As a result, defendant experienced substance-induced blackouts. Defendant's alcohol and drug use also exacerbated his inability to control his aggression. Dr. Kay testified that defendant's left frontal lobe damage could have been caused by, among other factors, defendant's "pre-adolescent drug use." Thus, alcohol and drug use could have contributed to defendant's extreme violence. Defendant argues that Aifer was ineffective because she failed to introduce testimony from several other witnesses who would have documented his alcohol and drug abuse. At the PCR evidentiary hearing, six more witnesses supported the evidence of defendant's drug and alcohol addiction. Jackson testified that in the weeks preceding defendant's murders, she and defendant often got drunk together. Stewart observed defendant use alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine. According to Mack El, defendant consistently was intoxicated a few months before the crimes. About three years earlier, Evans and Kim Alston saw defendant intoxicated on a daily basis. Kenneth McGloun stated that he suspected that defendant abused alcohol. The PCR court concluded that because Jackson would have described defendant's attempted rape, Aifer reasonably decided not to call Jackson. The court nonetheless determined that Aifer was deficient for failing to call the other five witnesses who would have testified about defendant's substance abuse. The testimony of those witnesses, however, would have been cumulative of the penalty-phase evidence. Furthermore, Evans and Alston would have provided harmful evidence that defendant had been affiliated with a gang when he was a teenager. We agree. Aifer's failure to interview Jackson and the other five witnesses cannot be attributed to a reasonable strategic decision or tactical allocation of resources. Those witnesses could have offered useful testimony concerning defendant's lifelong alcohol and drug addiction, which the jury could have found was a mitigating factor. In failing to interview the witnesses, Aifer's assistance was deficient. Their additional testimony, however, would not have affected substantially the penalty-phase deliberations. The jury heard sufficient documentation of defendant's substance abuse, including the incident in which defendant was unconscious on the side of the road. Although the PCR witnesses would have supported defendant's use of alcohol and drugs shortly before the Peniston murder, evidence of defendant's addictions was essentially uncontroverted. Defendant's penalty-phase witnesses testified that substance abuse plagued him throughout his life. One expert witness even stated that defendant told him that he had been intoxicated at the time of the Peniston murder. The State did not present any evidence suggesting that defendant had overcome his addictions during his teenage years. Evidence that Aifer might have developed would have been cumulative. Therefore, Aifer's presentation on this issue was not ineffective. d. Failure to Enumerate Catch-All Mitigating Factors c. Evidence of Remorse Defendant also argues that Aifer was ineffective because she did not introduce any evidence of his remorse. This issue overlaps defendant's contention that the trial court and his counsel deprived him of his right of allocution. Because this issue is best analyzed within the framework of the common-law right of allocution, we will discuss it in section IIIB, infra at (slip op. 47-60). d. Life Sentence In her opening and closing statements, Aifer asked the jury to consider defendant's seventy years of parole ineligibility as a mitigating factor. Defendant argues that Aifer's argument was deficient because he actually would have been subject to an eighty-one-and-one-half year period of parole ineligibility. Regardless of which period of time is accurate, Aifer's assistance was not ineffective. Any error is irrelevant because a defendant's parole ineligibility cannot be a mitigating factor. State v. Cooper, 151 N.J. 336, 404-05 (1997). Even if defendant's period of parole ineligibility were relevant, we agree with the PCR court that the ten-year difference had no propensity to affect the jury's deliberations. At the PCR hearing, Smith, defendant's appellate attorney, stated that Aifer admitted that she, rather than defendant, unilaterally decided that defendant should not testify. Aifer, however, testified that on several occasions she had discussed the issue with defendant, but that he was reluctant to testify. According to Aifer, she explained to defendant the risk of testifying, particularly the danger of subjecting himself to cross-examination. The dangers were real. At the Peniston trial in 1984, the prosecutor effectively cross-examined defendant. Consequently, Aifer advised defendant that it would be more convincing to present the facts about which he sought to testify through expert witnesses. Defendant's recollection differs from Aifer's. At the PCR hearing, defendant stated that he had told Aifer that he wanted to testify at the penalty-phase hearing. According to defendant, Aifer told him that he should not testify. Instead, she suggested that defendant undergo a videotaped hypnosis as a means of presenting his testimony without subjecting himself to cross examination. Although defendant believed that he could not be hypnotized, he agreed. The attempt at hypnosis failed. Defendant and Aifer disagreed whether defendant should testify. Although Aifer promised Bey to discuss the issue with him on a later date, they never did. As a result, defendant claims that he was unaware of his right to testify. The PCR court concluded that Aifer had not usurped defendant's right to testify. The court determined that defendant was aware of that right as a result of his original murder trials in 1983 and 1984. According to the court, defendant chose not to exercise this right in 1990. Instead, he concurred with counsel's decision to shield him from cross examination. From the foregoing, we conclude that Aifer did not inform defendant properly that the decision whether to testify was his. Nor did she sufficiently consult with defendant. Instead, Aifer decided on her own that defendant should not testify at the penalty-phase retrial. The next question is whether counsel's deficiency prejudiced defendant. Defendant argues that we should forego this analysis because of the fundamental nature of the right to testify. He posits that the impact of a defendant's own words on a jury is too speculative to support a finding of harmless error. Consequently, defendant urges the adoption of a per se rule that the denial of the right to testify is presumptively prejudicial. Alternatively, defendant requests that we require the State to prove that the denial of the right to testify was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S. Ct. 824, 828, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 (1967) (holding that, in order to conclude that federal constitutional error is harmless, court must find that error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt ). Previously, we have evaluated claims involving the denial of a defendant's right to testify under the Strickland/Fritz test. Savage, supra, 120 N.J. at 631. Notwithstanding the unique nature of a defendant's testimony, we continue to believe that the Strickland/Fritz test, see supra at (slip op. at 10-12), applies to the issue before us. Several federal courts likewise have required defendants to prove that they have been prejudiced by defense counsel's failure to inform them of the right to testify. See, e.g., United States v. Tavares, 100 F.3d 495 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (rejecting rule under which defense counsel's performance resulting in denial of defendant's right to testify constitutes prejudice per se); Ortega v. O'Leary, 843 F.2d 258, 262 (7th Cir. 1988) (applying harmless-error analysis to denial of right to testify); Campos v. United States, 930 F. Supp. 787 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) (holding that analyzing denial of right to testify as claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is soundest approach). Counsel's failure to inform defendant of his right to testify is not "so likely to prejudice the accused that the cost of litigating [its] effect in a particular case is unjustified." United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 658, 104 S. Ct. 2039, 2046, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 667. Even if Aifer had informed Bey that the ultimate decision to testify was his to make, his testimony would not have affected substantially the penalty-phase deliberations. In brief, defendant has not satisfied the showing of prejudice required by the second prong of the Strickland/Fritz test. Defendant was aware of his right to testify from his experience in his two previous murder trials. During the original Alston trial in 1983, defendant's attorney, William Gearty, informed the court that he had advised defendant of his right to choose whether to testify: Your honor, in this matter, I have discussed with the defendant his rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Fifth Amendment. I have advised him at this proceeding on the issue of guilt at his option, he may chose not to testify in his own defense. I've explained that to him. I'm convinced that he understands it. I am convinced also that after our discussion of the matter he has knowingly and intelligently waived that right to testify on his own behalf and has indeed elected not to testify in this, the guilt phase of the trial. B. Right of Allocution Defendant did not read a statement of allocution to the penalty-phase jury. He now claims that the trial court and his attorney deprived him of the right of allocution. A capital defendant has a common-law right to present a statement of allocution to the penalty-phase jury. Ibid. State v. Zola, 112 N.J. 384, 429-30 (1988) (quoting McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183, 220, 91 S. Ct. 1454, 1474, 28 L. Ed. 2d 711, 733 (1971), vacated on other grounds, 408 U.S. 941, 92 S. Ct. 2873, 33 L. Ed. 2d 765 (1972)), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1022, 109 S. Ct. 1146, 103 L. Ed. 2d 205 (1989). The right of allocution is designed to ensure that a defendant not be sentenced to death by a jury 'which never heard the sound of his voice.' . During allocution, a defendant is permitted to make a brief statement in order to allow the jury to ascertain that he or she is an individual capable of feeling and expressing remorse and of demonstrating some measure of hope for the future. State v. Loftin, 146 N.J. 295, 361 (1996) (Loftin I). A defendant, however, may not use allocution to rebut facts in evidence or to deny his guilt. Zola, supra, 112 N.J. at 430. If the defendant makes an impermissible statement, the court may strike the offending portions, allow the State to respond, or permit limited cross-examination of the defendant. Ibid. The trial court must engage defendant in a colloquy to apprise defendant of his right of allocution. Bench Manual for Capital Causes Appendix Q. Here, however, defendant did not assert his right of allocution at trial or on direct appeal. For the first time, he now argues that the trial court erred by failing to inform of his right of allocution. A challenge to the trial court's failure to afford defendant an opportunity to make a statement of allocution must be raised on direct appeal. State v. Cerce, 46 N.J. 387, 396 (1966). Furthermore, defendant's claim is barred by Rule 3:22-4, which provides: Any ground for relief not raised in a prior proceeding . . . is barred from assertion in a proceeding . . . unless the court . . . finds (a) that the ground for relief not previously asserted could not reasonably have been raised in any prior proceeding; or (b) that enforcement of the bar would result in fundamental injustice; or (c) that denial of relief would be contrary to the Constitution of the United States or the State of New Jersey. None of the three exceptions applies in this case. Defendant did not raise his right of allocution on direct appeal. For the following reasons, that failure bars his challenge on post-conviction relief. First, the denial of the right of allocution was apparent from the record. Defendant, therefore, reasonably could have raised this objection on direct appeal. Second, the denial of the right of allocution does not result in fundamental injustice. Although our civilization commends permitting a defendant to express his remorse and make a plea for mercy, Zola, supra, 112 N.J. at 429, such an expression is not essential to provide[] the defendant with fair proceedings leading to a just outcome, State v. Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565, 587 (1992). Even in the absence of a statement made in allocution, the jury must reach a rational fact-based conclusion on whether he shall live or die. Zola, supra, 112 N.J. at 430. Third, the denial of the right of allocution, which is grounded in the common law, does not contravene the federal or state constitutions. Defendant next alleges that Aifer's assistance was ineffective because she did not inform him of his right of allocution. Instead, Aifer unilaterally decided not to use an allocutory statement that defendant had drafted. Contrary to the dissent, we do not review the denial of the right of allocution in a vacuum. "The claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in the penalty phase can fairly be assessed only in the context of the entire trial record and of the grave offenses of which defendant was convicted." Marshall III, supra, 148 N.J. at 252. The PCR court concluded that the decision whether a defendant should make a statement of allocution is a matter of trial strategy best left to counsel. At the PCR hearing, Aifer testified that she had not used defendant's proposed statement because portions of it were inadmissible and would subject defendant to cross-examination. In the statement, defendant denied that he had committed purposeful or knowing murder and attempted to rebut the testimony of the mental health experts. Aifer concluded that the jury might find the statement insincere. On summation, moreover, the prosecutor could have attacked the sincerity of any such statement. Consequently, the PCR court held that Aifer had made a reasonable strategic decision for defendant not to make a statement in allocution. Fundamentally, the right of allocution, like the right to testify, is a personal right that defendants themselves decide whether to exercise. Accordingly, the trial court should address the defendant, rather than counsel, concerning the right of allocution. Defense counsel should not make an independent strategic decision whether defendant should exercise that right. Instead, as with the right to testify, defense counsel should consult with their clients so the clients can make their own informed decisions. It follows that defense counsel should inform the defendant of the right of allocution or ensure that the trial court apprises the defendant of this right. Moreover, as with the right to testify, counsel must advise the defendant on the issue whether to submit a statement of allocution to the jury and to explain the tactical advantages or disadvantages of doing so or not doing so. Counsel's responsibility includes advising a defendant of the benefits inherent in exercising that right and the consequences inherent in waiving it. . . . Indeed, counsel's failure to do so will give rise to a claim of ineffectiveness of counsel. Here, Aifer should have requested the trial court to engage defendant in a sufficient colloquy concerning the right of allocution. Instead, after consulting with defendant, she simply asked him on the penultimate day of the trial to write out if I could say something to the jury, what would I say. Although Aifer informed defendant of the purpose of this statement, she did not explain the limits of such a statement or that it would not necessarily subject him to cross-examination. Once defendant completed his statement, Aifer glanced at" and rejected it. Rather than discussing the advantages and disadvantages of allocution, she decided unilaterally not to use his statement. On these facts, we conclude that counsel's performance was deficient. We therefore turn to the question whether counsel's deficiency prejudiced defendant. Once again, we resist defendant's suggestion that we presume prejudice. The evaluation of a claim that defense counsel did not fulfill the duty to inform a defendant of the right of allocution is like the evaluation of other ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, including those involving the right to testify. See supra at (slip op. at 10-12). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that a statement of remorse by defendant would not have substantially affected the jury's deliberations. Two days before the end of the trial, defendant drafted the following statement at the request of his attorney: Morning Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury I know that you may want to hear from me on why my Life should be spared by you. As you know from the Various Doctors that testified in this proceeding I'm not good at explaining myself vocally. So instead I am writing this letter to you and speak to you on this matter. I do not know if Judge Arnone will allow you to read this or let this be read to you but I'm trusting that he will. The crime's that have me before you in this matter there is no excuse that I can give and what I write is not to be taken as one, this is only to let you know some of my feeling's. At the time of this crime, I was 18 yr's old and am now 25 yr's old, and I will live with this pain for the rest of my LIFE knowing this. I cannot tell you why someone was murdered that night nor can anyone else in this court room. I say this because I have not been able to answer this question to myself. But over these 7 yr's I have thought about why a murder took place that night and even tho I have not still understood it, I do know that I could not and would not ever intentionally take someone's life away for any reason. That I know for sure. People say that I don't show any emotion's but that is not true. When I think about what happened I do cry and ask forgiveness from the Alston and Peniston Families when I am in my cell at night or think about what happened. But how can I ask them for forgiveness or let them know that when I cry at night I cry for them also. I have told them that I am sorry and meant it, when I say these thing's to them tho, someone say's that I don't mean it or when I don't say anything they say that I don't have any remorse but the people who make these statement have not sat down with me to see what I am feeling. Before this crime took place, I had not cried for a long time, but now in these 7 yr's I have cried a lot, and within myself I know that my sorrow is knowing that what happened was wrong and for the Peniston Family, and to say to them again that I am sorry. Ladies and Gentleman Thank You for this chance to speak to You. The statement is problematic. Specifically, in the third paragraph, defendant disputes that he had committed a knowing or purposeful murder of Peniston. That assertion contradicts the jury's finding in the guilt phase. Even if defense counsel had advised defendant to eliminate that denial and to plead for mercy, the record demonstrates that the plea would not have had a substantial propensity to affect the jury's deliberations. In State v. Gerald, 113 N.J. 40 (1988), we held that a murder committed with the intent to cause serious bodily injury, as opposed to the intent to kill, is not death-eligible. But see Amendment to N.J. Const. art. I, 12 (overruling Gerald holding). Defendant's guilt-phase trial was conducted before our holding in Gerald. On direct appeal, defendant argued that he should receive a new guilt phase trial because the facts provided a rational basis to believe that he intended merely to cause serious bodily harm. We rejected the argument. Bey III, supra, 129 N.J. at 580. Capital murder convictions rendered before Gerald are reversible only if the jury rationally could have convicted the defendant of causing serious bodily injury resulting in death. Gerald, supra, 113 N.J. at 92. In Bey III, we concluded that the evidence led to the conclusion that defendant's intent was to kill, not merely cause serious bodily injury, to his victim. When a defendant employs various means of violence against the same victim, we need not focus on which method actually succeeded in causing death. Rather, we find that defendant's actions, taken as a whole, were so wantonly brutal that he could have intended only to cause death, or knew that death was practically certain to occur. Overall, we find that defendant's strangulation of the victim and the degree of force applied to the victim's head and chest make it simply "inconceivable that defendant was not 'practically certain' that his action would kill the [victim]." [Bey III, supra, 129 N.J. at 580.] Defendant now contends that, in light of the Gerald holding, McCauley, his co-counsel, was ineffective in preparing a motion for a new guilt-phase trial. When drafting the motion, McCauley relied on the medical examiner's testimony and the autopsy report introduced during the guilt-phase of the original trial. He did not review the autopsy report or crime-scene photographs. Nor did he retain an independent pathologist to examine the photographs. At the PCR hearing, the defense introduced testimony from a pathologist, Dr. Karl Schwarz. Dr. Schwarz testified that blunt trauma to the heart and the head were as capable as ligature strangulation of having caused Peniston's death. Defendant reasons that Dr. Schwarz's testimony supports defendant's theory that he did not strangle the victim for the time necessary to kill her. Instead, defendant asserts that Peniston died suddenly and unexpectedly from the head and chest trauma. According to defendant, this theory provides a rational basis for convicting him of serious-bodily-injury murder. The PCR court, relying on our decision in Bey III that defendant's strangulation and other violent acts demonstrated that defendant purposefully or knowingly murdered Ms. Peniston, rejected defendant's claim. We likewise reject the claim. Even if McCauley should have sought a second opinion from a pathologist, such testimony would not have affected the outcome of the Gerald motion for a new trial. On direct appeal, we held, regardless of the actual cause of death, that defendant's actions demonstrated that he had formed the intent to kill. As we stated, defendant not only strangled the victim from behind, he also smashed her face hard enough to break her dental plate and cause cerebral hemorrhaging, and he stomped on her chest with enough force to crush her ribs, damage her heart and inscribe his sneaker sole on her chest. Bey III, supra at 129 N.J. at 580. The degree of force defendant exerted was central to our finding that defendant acted with the intent to kill. Traumatic injuries to the victim's heart and head, as opposed to strangulation, may have been the actual cause of death. That fact, however, does not negate our conclusion that the evidence that defendant intended to cause death or knew that death was practically certain to occur is so compelling as to exclude the possibility that he possessed a less culpable state of mind. Id. at 581. Defendant's motion for a new trial would have been denied even if McCauley had consulted a pathologist or taken other action in preparation of the motion. Thus, we find no prejudice to defendant. The trial court's initial misstatement does not provide a sufficient basis for conducting an evidentiary hearing. The foreman told the court that the jury did not need an answer to the question about defendant's parole ineligibility period. When questioned by Judge Arnone, the court officer summarized the jurors' communication: They knocked and said they had a verdict and I informed Judge Arnone, who was with Judge Ricciardi at that time. Rule 1.16-1, Interviewing Jurors Subsequent to Trial, states: Except by leave of court granted on good cause shown, no attorney or party shall directly, or through any investigator or other person acting for the attorney interview, examine, or question any grand or petit juror with respect to any matter relating to the case. The record does not support the requisite a finding of good cause. As we have stated, [C]alling back jurors for interrogation after they have been discharged is an extraordinary procedure which should be invoked only upon a strong showing that a litigant may have been harmed by jury misconduct. Loftin I, supra, 146 N.J. at 382 (citations omitted). The record does not demonstrate the requisite showing of harm. We therefore deny defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing and find that it was unnecessary for Judge Arnone to recuse himself from the PCR proceeding. Second, defendant challenges our conclusion in Bey III that the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury concerning defendant's seventy-year parole ineligibility period was harmless error. Defendant contends that the conclusion contravenes the United States Supreme Court's holding in Simmons, supra. Simmons involved a defendant against whom the State asserted future dangerousness as an aggravating factor. 512 U.S. at 157, 114 S. Ct. at 2190. The Court held that the defendant was entitled to inform the jury that he would be ineligible for parole for life if he was not sentenced to death. Id. at 163, 114 S. Ct. at 2194. Here, in contrast, the State did not argue that the jury should consider defendant's future dangerousness. We similarly distinguish Simmons and Loftin, where we stated: [T]he State did not proffer defendant's "future dangerousness" as an aggravating factor and the only available alternative sentence to death was not life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Future dangerousness is not an aggravating factor in New Jersey, and our statute limits prosecutors to the enumerated aggravating factors. Loftin I, supra, 146 N.J. at 371. Additionally, defendant's alternative sentence allowed for the possibility, as slight as it may be, of parole. Defendant further contends that the "prior murder" aggravating factor equates with "future dangerousness," a contention that we implicitly rejected in Loftin I. In Loftin I, we concluded that Simmons did not apply despite the fact that the jury had found the prior-murder aggravating factor. We reach the same conclusion here. In addition, the United States Supreme Court recently held that Simmons established a new rule of law that, based on federal retroactivity principles, should not be applied on collateral review. See O'Dell v. Netherland, 521 U.S. 151, 117 S. Ct. 1969, 138 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1997). Third, defendant claims that this Court did not address several related arguments in Bey III. Defendant contends that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial and the right to the intelligent use of his peremptory challenges because voir dire proceeded on the premise that the alternative to death was two life sentences with an aggregate seventy-year parole ineligibility period. According to defendant, the trial court's erroneous instructions violated his Eighth Amendment right to a reliable penalty-phase trial. He asserts that several jurors stated or implied that they could not deliberate impartially between sentencing alternatives of death and a thirty-year parole ineligibility period. Lastly, defendant urges the Court to adopt a rule that trial judges must decide before the penalty-phase proceeding whether non-capital sentences should be consecutive. These arguments overlap the defendant's previous contentions, which this Court resolved on direct appeal. See Bey III, supra, 129 N.J. at 606. B. Court's Delay in Answering the Jury Question Defendant renews his contention, raised on direct appeal, that the trial court's delay in responding to the jury's question regarding the length of defendant's period of parole ineligibility coerced a verdict imposing a death sentence. As we held in Bey III, the delay did not constitute reversible error. 129 N.J. at 607. Relitigation of this issue is barred by Rule 3:22-5. Therefore, defendant's renewed claim is procedurally barred pursuant to Rule 3:22-5. Additionally, this claim duplicates defendant's contention that his mother's testimony at the PCR evidentiary hearing would have provided support for the catch-all mitigating factor. As previously indicated, supra at (slip op. at 26), Ms. Bey's PCR testimony, which was cumulative of testimony provided by other witnesses, would not have affected the jury's deliberations. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES GARIBALDI and COLEMAN join in JUSTICE POLLOCK'S opinion. JUSTICE HANDLER has filed a separate, dissenting opinion, Point II of which is joined by JUSTICES O'HERN and STEIN. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 171 September Term 1997 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MARKO BEY, Defendant-Appellant. HANDLER, J., dissenting. In 1984, defendant Marko Bey was tried and convicted of the capital murder of Carol Peniston and other related offenses. The jury sentenced him to death. The Court affirmed defendant's convictions but reversed his death sentence. State v. Bey, 112 N.J. 123 (1988) (Bey II). A new penalty trial was held in 1990 and defendant was again sentenced to death. This Court affirmed defendant's death sentence. State v. Bey, 129 N.J. 557 (1992) (Bey III), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1164, 115 S. Ct. 1131, 130 L. Ed. 2d 1093 (1995). The Court subsequently found that defendant's death sentence was not disproportionate. State v. Bey, 137 N.J. 334 (1994) (Bey IV), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1164, 115 S. Ct. 1131, 130 L. Ed. 2d 1093 (1995). Thereafter, defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). Defendant now appeals the denial of that PCR petition. The denial of effective assistance of counsel is the thread that runs through virtually all of defendant's claims for PCR. Almost all of defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims pertain to the alleged inadequacy of R. Diane Aifer, Esq., lead counsel at defendant's retrial. Defendant claims that he was denied certain important constitutional rights and due process protections, and that the ineffectiveness of counsel contributed to those denials. The most prominent of defendant's circumvented rights was that of allocution. Counsel's ineffective assistance led to defendant's inability to exercise that right in spite of clear indications that he wanted to do so. Defendant was denied his right to testify in a similar manner. Counsel failed to advise defendant regarding the benefits and drawbacks of testifying, and unilaterally decided on defendant's behalf that defendant would not testify. Defendant also contends that counsel was ineffective because she failed to undertake necessary and adequate investigation in preparation for defendant's trial, and that this deficiency contributed to counsel's failure to present mitigating evidence that would have substantially affected jury deliberations in his penalty trial. Finally, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the period of parole ineligibility attendant to the alternative sentence to a death verdict, and that the PCR court subsequently erred in denying defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing on the matter. Those errors, individually and in aggregate, require that defendant's sentence be vacated. Justices O'Hern and Stein join in Part II of this opinion. NO. A-171 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MARKO BEY, Defendant-Appellant. DECIDED August 11, 1999 Chief Justice Poritz We must recognize that counsel representing a defendant in a capital-murder prosecution must demonstrate the competence of a specialist and expert, not simply the skills of an average practitioner. Most particularly, counsel should exhibit this level of competence in the sentencing phase of a capital murder prosecution. [State v. Davis, 116 N.J. 341 (1989) (Handler, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part).] See Marshall III, supra, 148 N.J. at 311 (Handler, J., dissenting); State v. Savage, 120 N.J. 594, 644 (1990) (Handler, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); State v. Oglesby, 112 N.J. 522, 544-45 (1991) (Handler, J., concurring). Capital defendants require, without a doubt, a different level of representation than non-capital defendants. For example, at the trial of Steven Beverly, a prison inmate convicted for the capital murder of a prison guard, it was widely reported that Beverly did not testify . . . but read an allocution -- a prepared statement not subject to cross examination. He was only allowed to express remorse or regret. "I did not want or mean for Officer Baker to die, God knows," Beverly said choking back tears. "That will be with me for the rest of my life. Now I ask the members of the jury, please have mercy upon my soul." [Jury Mulls Fate of Jail Guard's Murderer, Trenton Times, Nov. 11, 1998, at A6.] Another story noted that Beverly, 39, of Atlantic City tearfully apologized in court Tuesday and pleaded with the jury, saying he never intended to kill Baker. He asked jurors to 'have mercy upon my soul.' Inmate Gets life for Killing Guard, Star Ledger, Nov. 13, 1998, at 40. Beverly was sentenced to life imprisonment. In another capital murder prosecution, involving the carjacking, abduction, rape, and stabbing murder of a young mother in front of her child, defendant Scott Johnson, publicly reviled throughout the State, also exercised his right of allocution. He addressed the jury: I'm sorry for what I did. And I know if I could change back the clock of time I would but I know I can't. I will live with this for the rest of my life. I'm really sorry for what happened. Thank you. Numerous newspaper articles reported the defendant's plea, and remarked on the personal appeal made to the jury by defendant's six-year-old daughter, who asked the jury to spare her father's life. Articles allotted more space to the allocution statement than to extensive testimonial mitigating evidence regarding the defendant's abusive childhood offered in the defendant's penalty trial. See, e.g., Jim O'Neill, Shollar Killer Apologies and Pleads for His Life, Star Ledger, Mar. 3, 1995. The allocution, [Johnson's] first public acknowledgment of wrongdoing since his arrest, ibid., seems to have been a substantial reason for his life sentence. [to require the trial court to follow a special procedure, explicitly telling defendant about, and securing an explicit waiver of, a privilege to testify . . . could inappropriately influence the defendant to waive his constitutional right not to testify . . . . [120 N.J. at 630 (quoting Sicilian v. Vose, 834 F.2d 29, 30 (1st. Cir. 1987)).] I agree that the trial court should not in any way take on an advisory role in obtaining a waiver directly from a capital defendant, which would contravene the decision in Savage. Trial courts are certainly able to ask a defendant objective questions in order to secure assurances that the defendant has voluntarily and knowingly waived his right to testify or allocute. We allow such questioning in plea proceedings and when a defendant is waiving the right to counsel. We should also do so when a capital defendant has decided not to personally appeal to the jury.