Opinion ID: 2159195
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Did the Trial Court Violate Defendant's Right to a Fair Trial by Failing to Afford Him the Opportunity to Address the Jury Personally and Plead for Mercy Without Being Subject to Cross-Examination?

Text: In this case defendant elected to testify in the penalty phase and was subjected to cross-examination. He invokes as plain error the trial court's failure to accord him the common law right of allocation, the ancient right of a defendant `to present to the sentencer his plea in mitigation. The most persuasive counsel may not be able to speak for a defendant as the defendant might, with halting eloquence, speak for himself.' State v. Zola, supra, 112 N.J. at 428 (quoting Green v. United States, 365 U.S. 301, 304, 81 S.Ct. 653, 655, 5 L.Ed. 2d 670, 673 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., plurality opinion)). In Zola we observed that the right of allocution is set forth in our Rules of Court. Rule 3:21-4(b) provides: Before imposing sentence, the court shall address the defendant personally and ask him if he wishes to make a statement in his own behalf and to present any information in mitigation of punishment. The defendant may answer personally or by his attorney. No such reference appears in the rule governing sentencing hearings in capital cases. R. 3:21-4A. We held in State v. Zola, supra , that there was no federal or state constitutional mandate that a capital defendant be accorded the right of allocution. 112 N.J. at 430. Nevertheless, we determined that such a right should be recognized, on a prospective basis, based on our supervisory jurisdiction over criminal trials: We do not base our argument on State or Federal Constitutions and would not find the absence of the right grounds to reverse a capital trial conducted prior to this date. We make our ruling in the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction over criminal trials in New Jersey. Hence, in the future, we shall permit the narrowly-defined right of a capital defendant to make a brief unsworn statement in mitigation to the jury at the close of the presentation of evidence in the penalty phase. Before a defendant speaks, he shall be instructed by the court, outside of the presence of the jury, of the limited scope of the right; that his statement is subject to the court's supervision; and that should the statement go beyond the boundaries permitted he will be subject to corrective action by the court including either comment by the court or prosecutor or in some cases possible reopening of the case for cross-examination. We shall request our committee on capital cases to suggest any necessary procedures to assist trial courts in this aspect of capital sentencing. It might be useful for a court to examine in advance of the defendant's speech a written outline of the proposed statement. At any rate, we shall stand ready to reconsider this ruling if experience dictates that allocution creates more problems than it solves. [ Id. at 431-432.] Accordingly, since defendant's trial occurred before our decision in Zola, no error resulted from the trial court's failure to afford defendant the right of allocution. In the event of retrial of the penalty proceeding, the right of allocution shall be available to defendant in accordance with our opinion in Zola.