Opinion ID: 2076252
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Judge's Instructions

Text: We addressed the issue of a trial judge's instructions concerning a defendant's allocution in Harris V, wherein the trial court had instructed the jury as follows concerning the defendant's right of allocution: A Defendant has a common law right of allocution, i.e., to address the sentencing body in mitigation of punishment, however, his statement in allocution is not evidence or testimony. During allocution the Defendant is not under oath, and thus not subject to the penalties of perjury and to cross-examination. Any statement Jackie Harris makes to you should not be regarded as evidence but rather as his statement in mitigation of punishment. Harris V, 312 Md. at 254, 539 A.2d at 651. We reversed because the instructions in effect told the jury that it should disregard any facts stated during allocution, because those facts were not evidence or testimony. This is so because the sentencing jury was previously instructed that it was `to decide the case only on ... evidence.' We further noted that the instructions told the jury that they should not heed the ... precept that statements made at allocution may not be disregarded merely because they were not under oath. Id., 312 Md. at 254-55, 539 A.2d at 651. The court in the instant case initially instructed the jury on allocution as follows: Now, Mr. Hunt has presented a statement before you which is called an allocution. A defendant has a right of allocution, that is, to address the sentencing body in mitigation of punishment. His statement in allocution is not under oath and is not subject to the penalty of perjury and cross-examination. It is his opportunity to explain to you, in his own words, anything about the crime, his feelings regarding his conduct and any other matter which he wishes to bring to your attention in considering his sentence. You may consider his allocution and it may be a basis for establishing mitigating circumstances in imposing a life sentence. You must each, individually, accord whatever weight you deem appropriate in deciding the proper sentence for Mr. Hunt. During deliberations, the jury sent a note to the judge. In response to the note, the judge reinstructed the jury and included the following on allocution: Mr. Foreman and ladies and gentlemen, I have been asked to further explain to you, in section three, you must analyze all of the evidence presented and Mr. Hunt's allocution and determine if any mitigating circumstances have been proven. Now, I just mentioned allocution. Mr. Hunt has presented the statement before you which is called an allocution. The defendant has a right of allocution, that is, to address the sentencing body in mitigation of punishment. His statement in allocution is not evidence or testimony. During the allocution, the defendant is not under oath and thus not subject to the penalty of perjury and cross-examination. It is his opportunity to explain to you, in his own words, anything about the crime, his feelings regarding his conduct and any other matter which he wishes to bring to your attention in considering his sentence. You may consider his allocution and it may be a basis for establishing mitigating circumstances in imposing a life sentence. You must each individually accord it whatever weight you deem it appropriate, in determining the proper sentence for Mr. Hunt. (Emphasis added.) Hunt does not claim that the judge's instructions were erroneous, but instead he complains that [t]he combined effect of the [instructions] and the prosecutor's arguments had the effect of denigrating [his] allocution. He contends that the instructions as a whole, and particularly the addition in the reinstructions that allocution is not evidence or testimony when taken in conjunction with the closing arguments of the prosecutor, improperly encouraged the jury to disregard his allocution. We disagree. The instructions do not misstate the law on mitigation or allocution. While the court should not have told the jury that allocution is not evidence or testimony, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. It was made clear to the jury that allocution may be the basis for establishing mitigating circumstances, and contrary to Hunt's assertion, the instructions did not improperly encourage the jury to disregard [Hunt's] allocution. These instructions left the jury free to find as a mitigating circumstance such aspect of the content of [Hunt's] allocution ... simply by specifically setting it forth on the sentencing form. Booth v. State, 306 Md. at 199, 507 A.2d at 1112.