Opinion ID: 2527692
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Applicability of Crim.R. 32(A)(1)

Text: {¶ 83} Although Short's argument at trial focused on R.C. 2929.19(A)(1), he claims on appeal that Crim.R. 32(A)(1) also entitles a capital defendant to a sentencing hearing in front of the judge without a jury. {¶ 84} We disagree. Crim.R. 32(A)(1) grants the defendant in a criminal case the right to address the court in allocution, either in person or through counsel. The rule permits counsel to speak on behalf of the defendant and entitles the defendant to make a statement in his or her own behalf or present any information in mitigation of punishment. {¶ 85} However, the right to present any information in mitigation does not imply a right to an evidentiary hearing. The purpose of allocution is to permit the defendant to speak on his own behalf or present any information in mitigation of punishment. State v. Reynolds (1998), 80 Ohio St.3d 670, 684, 687 N.E.2d 1358. See also State v. Campbell (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 320, 325-326, 738 N.E.2d 1178 (allocution involves defendant's ability to make a personal appeal to sentencing judge). Moreover, the plain wording of the rule does not encompass anyone other than the defendant presenting information in mitigation. State v. Lowe (May 3, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 78021, 2001 WL 468536, . {¶ 86} Thus, neither R.C. 2929.19(A)(1) nor Crim.R. 32(A)(1) entitles a capital defendant to withhold mitigating evidence from the jury and then present it to the trial judge alone. Accordingly, we decline Short's invitation to overrule Roe.