Opinion ID: 1119842
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cross Examination of Lord's Allocution Statement.

Text: Prior to closing argument, Lord exercised his common law right to allocution. The purpose of allocution is to provide the defendant an opportunity to plead for leniency. See State v. Happy, 94 Wn.2d 791, 793, 620 P.2d 97 (1980); Marshall, Lights, Camera, Allocution: Contemporary Relevance or Director's Dream?, 62 Tul. L. Rev. 207, 211 (1987). Allocution assures the sentencer will consider the defendant's position on sentencing prior to pronouncing that sentence. State v. Peterson, 97 Wn.2d 864, 868, 651 P.2d 211 (1982). [45] In this case, as the majority correctly points out, Lord went beyond the bounds of allocution. He engaged in more than just a plea for mercy. Nonetheless, the court still erred in allowing the State to cross-examine Lord. By definition, allocution is an exchange between the defendant and the sentencer. Allocution does not involve the prosecutor. Neither the majority nor the State cite any case that holds there is a right to cross-examine a defendant after allocution. Instead, each cites language in State v. Mak, 105 Wn.2d 692, 718 P.2d 407, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 995 (1986), sentence vacated on writ of habeas corpus sub nom. Mak v. Blodgett, 754 F. Supp. 1490 (W.D. Wash. 1991). In Mak, the trial court rejected the defendant's request to make a statement to the jury following closing argument. [46] The language cited by the majority and the State merely holds a defendant may not make a statement to the jury after closing argument. Thus, Mak stands for the proposition the State must have an opportunity to rebut any statement the defendant makes. That rebuttal does not, however, have to take the form of cross examination. There is simply no language in Mak that says there is a right to cross-examine the defendant on his allocution statements. State v. Jeffries, 105 Wn.2d 398, 717 P.2d 722, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 922 (1986) illustrates the proper manner for dealing with a defendant's allocution. In Jeffries, the defendant did not testify during either the guilt or penalty phases of the trial. He did, however, exercise his right to allocution. In closing argument the prosecutor referred to defendant's allocution: Well, you have heard the Defendant in a situation where he does not have to take an oath and in a situation that I can't cross-examine him and his statement, I submit is one that is insulting to the intelligence. 105 Wn.2d at 415. The prosecutor used the closing argument to rebut the allocution. [47] That is the proper way to address allocution. The essence of the majority's argument is that the State must be allowed to cross-examine in order to rebut testimony offered by Lord during his allocution. Cross examination is not, however, necessary to rebut the allocution. Instead, the prosecutor could object that the statement is beyond the bounds of proper allocution. During closing argument the prosecutor may remind the jury of any properly introduced evidence that rebuts the defendant's statements. The prosecutor may make reasonable inferences and argument related to the allocution. The prosecutor may also, as did the prosecutor in Jeffries, remind the jury that the defendant's statement is unsworn and not subject to cross examination. In that way, the prosecutor can sufficiently rebut any of the defendant's statements. The rule the majority adopts is a trap for the unwary defendant. The majority places the burden solely on the defendant, and in so doing the majority fails to protect that defendant's rights. A better rule would be to require the prosecutor to object whenever he or she believes the defendant has gone beyond the proper bounds of allocution. That rule would protect both the State's and the defendant's interests. A proper objection would protect the State's interest in not having the defendant put unsworn testimony before the jury. It would also allow the court to protect the defendant's right to plead for mercy, by assuring the defendant does not go beyond the proper bounds of allocution. The cross examination of Lord violated his right to due process, and his right to remain silent. Therefore, I would vacate the sentence on this ground as well.