Opinion ID: 2264839
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Superior Court's Limiting Instruction on Shelton's Allocution

Text: It is important to understand the context in which the court's limiting instruction on allocution arose. First, Shelton had asked the trial court to permit him to represent himself. Second, Mr. Willard, his counsel to this point, acted as his stand-by counsel and was representing him under the awkward conditions that Shelton had imposed on Mr. Willard's role. Third, Mr. Willard was fully involved in the colloquy with the court on the issues of (a) Shelton's desire to represent himself; (b) Shelton's strategy not to present mitigating evidence even in the face of questions raised on the record by Mr. Willard and the court; and (c) the colloquy among the court, Shelton and Mr. Willard on the scope of allocution in this context. That series of events is detailed in the excerpts from pages 4 to 94 of the transcript of the February 26, 1993 proceedings and at pages 62 and 63 of the March 3, 1993 proceedings in the penalty phase. Those excerpts are set forth in Appendix A to this Opinion. Excerpts from pages 88-94 of the trial judge's findings and rulings on the allocution issue in the postconviction proceedings are set forth in Appendix B to this Opinion. In the penalty phase hearing, the Superior Court twice gave Shelton instructions limiting the scope of his allocution. Trial counsel never objected. The first limiting instruction occurred while the court and counsel discussed Shelton's desire to represent himself during the penalty phase. Trial Counsel: Secondly, he asked that in my position of assisting him, that I be able to give closing argument to the jury and argue my position on  against the death penalty because he feels that I can do that better than he could. And he reserves, your Honor, most particularly and first and most importantly his right to allocution. He has indicated to me that he's prepared to take the stand and make a statement to the jury, with or without having called witnesses, and that he understands that he has a right to allocution without cross examination. The Court: Well, if he takes the stand, he's not speaking in allocution as such. That will be a separate matter during which he cannot talk about the events of January 11, 12, 1992. Trial Counsel: Excuse me, your Honor. The Court: He can't get into  if he's speaking in allocution, he cannot discuss the events of January 11 and 12, 1992.     Trial Counsel: Your Honor, he understands that. He can't talk about any factual evidence. What he would intend to address them on is his life or his feelings about this matter, and that he believes and understands that if he does that and does not talk about any factual circumstances, that he can do that without cross examination. [98] Later in the day, the court granted Shelton's request to represent himself during the penalty hearing with trial counsel acting only as stand-by counsel. [99] At that point, the following colloquy occurred between the court and Shelton: The Court: Further, it does not prevent you in any way from speaking to the jury in allocution and to me. Do you understand that? Shelton: Allocution, I don't  The Court: Allocution is a very technical word, speaking to the jury on your own behalf. I apologize for using a word that [even] most lawyers don't know. Allocution is a very legalistic way for asking the sentencing authority, whether it's a judge or jury, to give you mercy, spare your life in this case, and sentence you to life. That's what it really means, to explain your humanity, you know. Shelton: I understand. The Court: Whether you want to  you can't argue about the facts. You can talk about yourself, your background, your upbringing, your education, your folks at home, any alcohol abuse problems, things like that. You can talk about all those things as much as you want. You just can't talk about the facts surrounding the murder. Do you understand that? Shelton: Yes. [100] At the penalty hearing on March 3, 1993, Shelton spoke briefly in allocution. The entire text of his allocution is as follows: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I stand before you not to plead for my life. I feel that's wrong and improper and basically disrespectful to the victim's family and to mine. The State has painted a picture, and that picture is not very pretty, pertaining to me and my codefendants. And I would just like to present to the jury a different side or a different meaning to Steven Shelton. The State has pictured me as being a monster, as being a rapist, as being a violent individual, but as you heard from my family, that's not so. The State only presents one side of the picture. There's two sides to every story. And the State just presents a negative side. The jury has found me guilty of these allegations, and now it's the jury's turn to render a verdict. And that verdict is either life in jail or death. Again, I'm not here to plead for my life, but just ask the jury to be fair in their decisions. That's all I have to say. [101] Shelton's strategy was to present little mitigating evidence at the penalty hearing and not to speak about the circumstances of the murder during allocution. [102] But he now argues that counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to object to the court's instruction limiting his allocution, and that he was prejudiced by counsel's omission.