Opinion ID: 1595830
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Allocution Before the Jury

Text: During the penalty phase, the jury submitted the following question to the trial court: Is it within the realm of possibility to consider a sentence based on allocution to the crime? Smith prepared a written statement and asked to make a statement of allocution to the jury in response to its question without being subject to cross-examination by the State. The trial court denied this request, and Smith challenges this ruling. Smith concedes that the Court rejected a similar claim in Troy v. State, 948 So.2d 635 (Fla.2007); however, he notes one factual differencehere, the jury was sophisticated enough be aware of allocution and may have expected Smith to make a statement of remorse. According to Smith, when the jurors did not receive allocution, they may have believed that Smith had no remorse for what he had done. Smith contends that the ruling of the trial court deprived him of a fair penalty phase and due process of the law. In Troy v. State , we held that the trial court did not err when it denied a capital defendant the opportunity to provide an allocution statement before the jury without being subject to cross-examination. In our analysis, we explained: Spencer outlines the proper sentencing phase procedure to be followed in death cases; it also emphasizes the role of the circuit judge over the trial jury in the decision to impose a sentence of death: First, the trial judge should hold a hearing to: a) give the defendant, his counsel, and the State, an opportunity to be heard; b) afford, if appropriate, both the State and the defendant an opportunity to present additional evidence; c) allow both sides to comment on or rebut information in any presentence or medical report; and d) afford the defendant an opportunity to be heard in person. Second, after hearing the evidence and argument, the trial judge should then recess the proceeding to consider the appropriate sentence. If the judge determines that the death sentence should be imposed, then, in accordance with section 921.141, Florida Statutes ... the judge must set forth in writing the reasons for imposing the death sentence. Third, the trial judge should set a hearing to impose the sentence and contemporaneously file the sentencing order. Such a process was clearly not followed during these proceedings. . . . . 615 So.2d at 690-91 (emphasis added).... In Johnson v. State, 608 So.2d 4 (Fla. 1992), this Court rejected the defendant's claim that a videotape he made expressing remorse should have been shown to the jury. Id. at 10. At trial, the trial judge denied this request, agreeing with the prosecution that it would enable the defendant to escape cross-examination by not testifying in person. Id. This Court agreed with the trial court's decision to exclude the videotape, concluding, All witnesses are subject to cross-examination for the purpose of discrediting them by showing bias, prejudice or interest. Jones v. State, 385 So.2d 132, 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Johnson could have made this plea to the judge, the sentencer, and we find no error in refusing to let the jury hear his self-serving statement. Johnson, 608 So.2d at 10. We reaffirm our holding in Johnson here. Troy, 948 So.2d at 648-49. In the instant case, consistent with Troy, Smith was allowed to make an allocution statement during the Spencer hearing. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied Smith's request, and relief on this claim is not warranted. [17]